Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ralf1108]

hi,


i would see a small feature in the next amule release or cvs to protect from accusal from advocates who says that i broke someones copyright which isnt true.
if the advocate says that i offer other p2p people software at specific time with a specific ip, i could theoreticaly invalidate the ip-time-evidence.

background:
how does the advocate get the information that i share a specific file ? he takes an p2p-client, starts downloading this file (which has a unique hashvalue) and loggs from who

he is downloading.
at the court the advocate says that the specific user with the ip and the timestamp offered a specific file.

what the advocate really says is that my p2p-client confirmed that i have a file which is equal to a specific hash value. but, there is no connection between "agreeing that i have a file with this hash value" and "i really posses this file on my harddisk".
the first agreeing could also be a fake because all my client has to do is to answer to everyone who asks for the file that i have this file.so i can say that i only posses the hash value of the file and fakes client requests.

so i could never really broke any copyright !! sharing a hashvalue and faking p2p-client-requests shouldn't be illegal !?!?




the feature for amule looks like this :
i have anywhere an option where i can enter a hashvalue with which i pretend to have the corresponding file. (entering one hash value would be enough. the point is, that i could show this functionality and pretend that at court that i used it. i never possed the corresponding file !

then a ip adress, a timestamp and a hashvalue of a copyrighted file would no evidence anymore !!


damage for the ed2k network because of fake hash values -> none. you didnt use it in normal amule using. you need it if you get an accusal that you shared copyright protected files.




maybe someone get the point of my english.....

[Kry]

I get the point of your english. You're...

...uh...

... a moron.

No offence meant! Oh, well, some offence meant.

You should NEVER share copyrighted files. That's NOT LEGAl, we don't SUPPORT it, we don't LIKE it, and what's more: if you get sued for breaking the law. FINE BY ME.

It's incredible that you have the guts to come here asking for an implementation of a feature that lets anyone:

1) Damage the network at will

2) Pretend to happily break the law.

If you're gonna break the law dude, do it at your own risk. Make sure noone here is gonna help you avoid being caught.

[Ralf1108]

no, i never said that i will break the law or play with the law. but i heard stories about advocates who accuses people who didnt offered copyrighted software in p2p.
what can someone do against this accusations ?? they got the ip and timestamp and any hashvalue of a copyrighted software from anybody in the p2p-network an acusse him only for profit.

with the feature above you can show them that they have no evidence for the accusation.

and with the feature above you have the evidence that that an ip, timestamp and a hashvalue says nothing.


and users didnt need this functionality, it is just the fact that there is the possibility that someone shared only a fake hashvalue.



the insult was needless. maybe on day you get a letter with the sitiuation above. what do you do ?

[Ralf1108]

and was is the meaning of this "warning" in my profile ? you kick my ass because i discuss real situations and what to do against them ??


sorry kry, i had great respect for you. you are the leader of the whole amule thing, definitiv a great programmer and not a dumb. and now you kick my ass because i got a question.....  weak...


forget it, i decline.


think of my if the advocate laughs you in your face.


nice day !

[Xaignar]

That's ok, we'd rather not break the network. Not to forget that your 'solution' is useless anyway.

[Kry]

Originally posted by Ralf1108
and was is the meaning of this "warning" in my profile ? you kick my ass because i discuss real situations and what to do against them ??

No. It's because you're making a rather inflamatory and problematic request that just calls for making excuses for breaking the law.

Originally posted by Ralf1108
sorry kry, i had great respect for you. you are the leader of the whole amule thing, definitiv a great programmer and not a dumb. and now you kick my ass because i got a question.....  weak...

Thanks, and sorry about the "had". Then again, I'm human, so I have human reactions. You didn't like the insult, that's ok, it was a moronic idea. Hence the "moron". You gotta have some weak character to let that word hurt you.

Originally posted by Ralf1108
forget it, i decline.

think of my if the advocate laughs you in your face.

I'll use this sentence as a base for the previous post too. If you have problems with lawyers that lie to get money, and judge gives them the "ok, right" and they win, you gota tell that to your local government, create a new political party, or just take a shotgun and kill them all. But making tools to help breaking law just because you claim there is people that can falsely accuse you of breaking it, it's... uh... you know the word, I have already said it enough times.

Originally posted by Ralf1108
nice day !

Sunny here.

[stefanero]

sunny there? thats not fair

[Xaignar]

We're getting snow. Yay!