Widescreen Gaming Forum

I don't see a need for a new title, seems perfect to match my reaction. Each side has some particular vocal members that refuse to change their opinion. It will not end.


Hence, *sigh*.

Each side has some particular vocal members that refuse to change their opinion. It will not end.

Hence why a debate needs a set time limit.

Everyone has made their points, not that it changes anything at all.

What do you suppose is their objective, then? Getting just barely enough sales to make a profit?

funny argument :doh I said not all companies have this as a primary objective which means it could be their secondary objective.
some companies have "do a great game" as a primary objective... which is not always compatible with sales depending on the vision of what "great" is

An event like that wouldn't make the network model change from P2P to client-server. It would make it change from P2P to a smaller P2P. Data flow wouldn't become dependent on a central machine just because several nodes go down. But forcing everyone to use a proxy would have that effect.

Broaden your vision man, this was purely hypothetical, yet your answer is "this is impossible"
so, although unlikely, let's say it is possible and you'll see what I meant instead of arguing over details... (edit: I could make a drawing if necessary)

Where would you put all these VPN's? You can't just have everyone set up their own personal VPN in the basement - the illegal P2P activity would just be traceable to their basements instead.

implementation details are irrelevant,the fact is : it could be done. companies could open up hundreds of VPNs in multiple locations, and even if their VPNs are located and raided by police, if they keep no data (hence no logs) there's nothing illegal in setting up VPNs as long as they don't advertise openly the possible abuse to hide illegal activities. As for current laws, it would be very difficult to accuse them of anything illegal.

also an individual could setup its own VPN on a distant server, hosted in a country with less drastic laws ...

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant, it can be done and a central server is not an obligation that's all I wanted to say. However the right implementation has yet to be done. (That said, some paedophiles already use such techniques and more to obfuscate their activities)

I said not all companies have this as a primary objective which means it could be their secondary objective.

Then that brings me back to a point I made earlier. If your "creative incentives" does not target piracy, if it would help maximize goals (their secondary objective), then they should be doing that anyway, meaning it isn't "working around" piracy.

Broaden your vision man, this was purely hypothetical, yet your answer is "this is impossible"
so, although unlikely, let's say it is possible and you'll see what I meant instead of arguing over details

You can't just assume unrealistic scenarios, argue what the result of these scenarios would be, and claim it means something. What if the Riemann hypothesis was proven false? What if we had a perpetual motion machine? What if Ubisoft came out with a DRM that was actually impossible to crack? Hypotheticals still need to be based in reality, or else they don't mean anything.

implementation details are irrelevant,the fact is : it could be done.

I challenge this fact on the grounds that there is no way to implement it in a manner that could meet the full demands without resembling the server-client model and having the bottlenecks associated with it.

companies could open up hundreds of VPNs in multiple locations, and even if their VPNs are located and raided by police, if they keep no data (hence no logs) there's nothing illegal in setting up VPNs as long as they don't advertise openly the possible abuse to hide illegal activities. As for current laws, it would be very difficult to accuse them of anything illegal.

If the governments were serious about stopping Internet piracy, and VPN companies suddenly popped up everywhere specifically to cater to the privacy needs of pirates, they would hold such companies responsible for what their hardware gets used for.

also an individual could setup its own VPN on a distant server, hosted in a country with less drastic laws ...

An individual could. A million individuals could not.

That said, some paedophiles already use such techniques and more to obfuscate their activities

And the authorities use techniques to find and arrest them. And in some cases, with really secure stuff like TOR, there have been crackdowns on the servers.

We need a new title for this. Suggestions?

DRM Pisses Everyone Off One Way or Another (Official Thread).

Any post filled with only personal attacks

if it would help maximize goals (their secondary objective), then they should be doing that anyway

yet they are not ...

You can't just assume unrealistic scenarios, argue what the result of these scenarios would be, and claim it means something. What if the Riemann hypothesis was proven false? What if we had a perpetual motion machine? What if Ubisoft came out with a DRM that was actually impossible to crack? Hypotheticals still need to be based in reality, or else they don't mean anything.

pffff... I'm really bothered by your stubbornness to refuse even the simplest of demonstrations...
ok fine, even though I believe you trust the internet to resist anything a bit too much, let's give up on this example
two existing KAD networks could connect to each other as IDs are discovered & links are established
now if one of these KAD networks consist of IPs in university ranges ... then it is possible that all of the other KAD network peers ban universities' IP ranges, (since pirates try to protect themselves from institutions) except one peer who would then act as a link between both networks hence transforming two P2P networks into a client-server network according to the concept that the route defines the type of network...

If the governments were serious about stopping Internet piracy,

but are they ?

and VPN companies suddenly popped up everywhere specifically to cater to the privacy needs of pirates, they would hold such companies responsible for what their hardware gets used for.

I seriously doubt it because 1) protecting privacy can be used for a lot of other things than just to serve piracy. just refer to the TOR project usage
so this means pirates wouldn't be their one and only clients ...
2) on what kind of charges would you get them down ? because they relay potentially illegal data ???

although I already see how governments could adapt laws to such a situation by forcing to keep logs of all data passing through, in the mean time you would still be able to use the VPNs ...

An individual could. A million individuals could not.

agreed hence why I said an individual ... :lol:

That said, some paedophiles already use such techniques and more to obfuscate their activities

And the authorities use techniques to find and arrest them. And in some cases, with really secure stuff like TOR, there have been crackdowns on the servers.

sure but you can't take down millions of pirates in a reasonable amount of time with such techniques hence why our government is looking at ways to "massively-fine" supposed pirates....

now let's end this silly discussion about whether P2P is based on the notion of route or the location or resources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Example_of_a_peer_to_peer_network.svg

in this example the link isn't precised because it's not important so it could be a single computer acting as a router with 5 RJ45 network connections
it would still be a P2P network despite all data passing through a single computer.

yet they are not ...

What does that have to do with your point?

pffff... I'm really bothered by your stubbornness to refuse even the simplest of demonstrations...

There's nothing simple about supposing the impossible. You'd basically have to re-write how the universe works.

two existing KAD networks could connect to each other as IDs are discovered & links are established
now if one of these KAD networks consist of IPs in university ranges ... then it is possible that all of the other KAD network peers ban universities' IP ranges, (since pirates try to protect themselves from institutions) except one peer who would then act as a link between both networks hence transforming two P2P networks into a client-server network according to the concept that the route defines the type of network...

I really don't follow what you're trying to illustrate here.

but are they ?

Haven't we established that they are taking measures so drastic that pirates will be forced to turn to proxies?

I seriously doubt it because 1) protecting privacy can be used for a lot of other things than just to serve piracy. just refer to the TOR project usage

I know there are legit uses for privacy. That doesn't mean TOR nodes can't be seized if illegal stuff is traced back to them.

2) on what kind of charges would you get them down ? because they relay potentially illegal data ???

Because they relay actually illegal data (as in illegal data has been positively traced to them) and the operators have made no effort whatsoever to discourage this use.

agreed hence why I said an individual

And this individual's piracy habits are dependent on his peers - peers who do not have the luxury of protecting their identities while stealing. Ultimately this individual won't have any peers to pirate things from.

sure but you can't take down millions of pirates in a reasonable amount of time with such techniques hence why our government is looking at ways to "massively-fine" supposed pirates....

Fines would go a long way to fighting piracy, provided they were given out regularly and consistently, like traffic tickets are. Basically, it's not necessary to ruin pirate's lives or put them in jail - just make the threat of consequences real enough that they might think twice before digitally lifting the latest game/movie/album.

in this example the link isn't precised because it's not important so it could be a single computer acting as a router with 5 RJ45 network connections

This example *isn't* a single computer acting as a router. There are five computers in this example, and the picture makes it clear none of them act as a central server. If you added a sixth computer acting as a router, you wouldn't be looking at the original diagram any more.

There's nothing simple about supposing the impossible. You'd basically have to re-write how the universe works.

it's not, I'm not changing how the universe works :roll: my example was very possible, just unlikely, however we already have examples of unlikely happenings in computers & technology but whatever ...

Haven't we established that they are taking measures so drastic that pirates will be forced to turn to proxies?

not really... nothing is established yet, there's still judicial & technical challenges around the corner ...

I know there are legit uses for privacy. That doesn't mean TOR nodes can't be seized if illegal stuff is traced back to them.

sure, however unless the TOR node owner is actually using his computer for illegal stuff, they would find nothing on it to be used to back up their accusations...

Because they relay actually illegal data (as in illegal data has been positively traced to them) and the operators have made no effort whatsoever to discourage this use.

haha ! but two things : 1)you suppose they would make no effort whatsoever to discourage its use...
2)then every and each internet relay is guilty of those charges (relaying illegal data) so this would challenge the whole principle of how internet works by making relays responsible of what data pass through their computers ...

And this individual's piracy habits are dependent on his peers - peers who do not have the luxury of protecting their identities while stealing. Ultimately this individual won't have any peers to pirate things from.

you don't need a lot of individuals to make an effective P2P network ... (Direct Connect)

This example *isn't* a single computer acting as a router. There are five computers in this example, and the picture makes it clear none of them act as a central server. If you added a sixth computer acting as a router, you wouldn't be looking at the original diagram any more.

a computer router or a hardware router doesn't make any difference, it's still a link ...
but fine since you will obviously not agree on this let's forget about this one and instead see this :

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jxta2/side-jxta2.html

How does a P2P network "work," and how is it different from the conventional client/server or multitiered networks we're so used to [...] In a P2P network, everything you'd want to access (called resources) are owned and managed by peers

http://freepctech.com/pc/002/networks007.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-server

In peer-to-peer architectures, each host or instance of the program can simultaneously act as both a client and a server, and each has equivalent responsibilities and status.

ftp://ftp.tik.ee.ethz.ch/pub/students/2002-2003-Wi/SA-2003-16.pdf

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751396.aspx

In the client-server scheme, a central server handles all security and file transactions; in peer-to-peer networks, each machine shares its own resources and handles its own security

http://www.enterprise-technology.net/network2.htm

In a client-server network architecture, however, certain computers are designated for full-time server duty, while others (such as user workstations) are full-time clients

http://www.ehow.com/about_5380893_peertopeer-vs-clientserver-networks.html

A client-server network involves multiple clients connecting to a single, central server. Public data and applications are only installed on the server

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Differences_between_peer_to_peer_network_and_client_server_network
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/P2P.2001.990434