Coders Develop Ways To Defeat SOPA Censorship 449
Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that one developer who doesn't have much faith in Congress making the right decision on anti-piracy legislation has already built a workaround for the impending censorship measures being considered, and called it DeSOPA. Since SOPA would block specific domain names (e.g. www.thepiratebay.com) of allegedly infringing sites, T Rizk's Firefox add-on allows you to revert to the bare internet protocol (IP) address (e.g. 194.71.107.15) which takes you to the same place. 'It could be that a few members of Congress are just not tech savvy and don't understand that it is technically not going to work, at all,' says T Rizk. 'So here's some proof that I hope will help them err on the side of reason and vote SOPA down.' Another group called 'MAFIAAFire' decided to respond when Homeland Security's ICE unit started seizing domain names, by coding a browser add-on to redirect the affected websites to their new domains. More than 200,000 people have already installed the add-on. ICE wasn't happy, and asked Mozilla to pull the add-on from their site. Mozilla denied the request, arguing that this type of censorship may threaten the open Internet."
Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's like MafiaaFire/FireIce for SOPA, just like a little custom HOSTS file in the form of a browser addon.
Technically not brilliant but a good political move, to demonstrate the futility of this legislation.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Funny)
We'll make our own Internet! With blackjack, and hookers!
Aikon-
Re:Good move (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, forget the joke....
Re:Good move (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good move (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in 2003 I started designing a Gnutella-like network aimed at being HTTP over P2P, effectively. Centralized server, CGI, distributed caching, end-to-end encryption, the works. It was based in domain resolution via named domain registries, with trust by digital signatures (PKI/PGP)--in other words, my idea of "DNS" was "I want the FOO DNS service and the BAR DNS service," and when I put in www.microsoft.com it would find records signed by FOO and BAR (no matter on who has it). These records may differ, so you would be able to use different "networks" (or really, name spaces). A DNS record would more be a digital ID than anything, too: microsoft.com carries with it a digital signature and certificate, and that is used to identify information from them on the network. It's possible to ask that a certain node verify time/datestamp and signature, so you could send out asking for a thing and have a copy coming down from a random node, which is also asking if it's up to date from the main server, as you ask as well--if not, the client drops that out-of-date page and grabs the new one directly, and the cached copy out on the network is dropped.
Maybe it's time I stand up and lead...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you realise what you've just done?
Now, I don't know if people of other countries are aware, but there are some things you just don't do because of what you might summon [wikipedia.org]
You realise that just simply mentioning the file in which hosts can be defined means you have probably cursed this thread with the summoning of APK, the hosts file troll?
Cue a thread or two of people winding the poor dumb bastard up, as he continues to list his random achievements from 2002 whilst gloating about being a graduate from some
Re: (Score:2)
I know, and I apologize in advance...
Re:Good move (Score:5, Funny)
It's not futile: it's Congress spurring innovation! Yeah, on workarounds for the law, but innovation nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not futile: it's Congress spurring innovation! Yeah, on workarounds for the law, but innovation nonetheless.
This seems analogous to the broken window fallacy in economics.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good move (Score:5, Informative)
A custom HOSTS file is all well and good, but doesn't take into account the type of censorship that's currently happening in the UK, with BT and SKY, with the Great British Firewall.
Both ISPs have instituted a blockade on Newzbin using BT's Cleanfeed, which acts as a transparent proxy between the user and the server. Typing in the IP address results in a timeout. Using OnpenDNS or Google's DNS results in the same issue.
If and when the US pro-censorship copyright cabals lobby for such a technological measure, a custom HOSTS file won't work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the Great British Firewall.
Wouldn't that be Hadrian's Firewall?
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox Plugin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Switching browser due to an extension which hackishly has a static hosts file seems kinda odd for a tech site.
Re: (Score:3)
alternative dns servers would be deemed illegal under sopa..
Re:Firefox Plugin (Score:4, Funny)
But everyone knows that pirates STEAL movies because they don't want to pay for them. Renting a VPS would go against this.
Re:Firefox Plugin (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Firefox Plugin (Score:5, Insightful)
How can they make a DNS server illegal?
By passing a law? That's how anything becomes illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
it would be considered a anti-sopa tool, and would be considered illegal in the same way programs that get around the dmca are illegal to own too. mod-chips, hdcp strippers, etc.
Re:Firefox Plugin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Firefox Plugin (Score:4, Insightful)
... or use a tool which hardcodes it in the 's hosts ....
That "tool" would be called a text editor, or Notepad, for those of you not computer literate.
Even worse.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I order you to delete this dangerous terrorist-aiding information from the Internets RIGHT NOW, citizen!
Re: (Score:3)
The resistance is responding by creating a decentralized content store: HTTP over BitTorrent.
Re:Even worse.... (Score:4, Funny)
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, there really is no way to stop people from getting around every roadblock you put down. Walls can only stretch so far. The only way to prevent them from doing what they want is to either destroy the internet or kill everyone in the country. The first could even be worked around with possibly WiFi meshes or usb drop locations.
If the government decides to do the second, well, can't exactly get around that when you're dead.
Re:Who didn't see this coming? (Score:4, Interesting)
Point is not to prevent every single person. Just enough of them to kill momentum.
Point is to make it too bothersome for average person. Which this particular countermeasure is - it is hard enough explain how to torrents downloaded in ideal conditions.
The fact is that it can very easily switch even geeks. I seriously do not want to waste time researching latest blocking techniques and some more time geting around them.
If stuff behind lock was something i would not really want to spend money on, i do not bother getting it for "free" anymore anyway. If it is something that matters, actually buying it sounds much more economic.
Also, it helps to realize that world does not owe you free shit.
Re: (Score:3)
0. Do you feel entitled to have free speech?
1. How much did you pay slashdot to host this comment?
Realize that you can have either free speech or censorship©right/patent laws, but not both...
Also realize the best things in life are free; Ergo: The more things that are free the better life is.
Re:Who didn't see this coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
That was the second goal of copyright when it was written. After a fixed period of time, art goes into the public domain.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it helps to realize that world does not owe you free shit.
I've seen few "pirates" that think that it does. But that's subjective, anyway.
That said, what about sites that are perfectly legal being blocked?
Re: (Score:2)
If the government decides to do the second, well, can't exactly get around that when you're dead.
True, but they won't do that because there wouldn't be any consumers left. The revenue sources need to be kept alive and in control.
IP-level blocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IP-level blocks (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why sites threatened by this legislation don't already have a darknet presence, what are they waiting for? They should have .i2p and .onion sites online by now.
Re:IP-level blocks (Score:4, Insightful)
Every site on the internet is threatened by this legislation.
Re:IP-level blocks (Score:5, Funny)
If meddling with DNS doesn't work, network operators will simply be forced to block at the IP level, e.g. by withdrawing the BGP routes to the censored sites. Good luck circumventing this kind of blocking (still possible with proxies, and maybe distributed anonymous p2p proxies, but a nuisance anyway).
Wait. Did you just state that there was a way to reliably block sites, sarcastically wish people luck, and then parenthetically note how to defeat your invented scenario?
In that case: They could isolate all servers with blocks of hardened, compressed layers of dried pasta. Good luck circumventing this kind of blocking (still possible with trained mice who can pull ethernet cables through their tunnels, and maybe wifi on frequencies not blocked by pasta, but a nuisance anyway).
Kind of fun. Now somebody else go!
Re:IP-level blocks (Score:5, Informative)
It may look paradox, but that's exactly how it is because that's the way routing in IP backbones is working. Suppose e.g. that your provider is Level-3 based, and Level-3 withdraws the BGP route to TPB to comply with SOPA. However, TPB can also connect to another tier-1 backbone that doesn't filter out its routes. You, behind Level-3 won't be able to access TPB directly, but via proxies, you could exit Level-3 and reach that other backbone, hence reach TPB. Of course, that scenario is more something for techies as it requires constant updating of alternative routes, but the 99.99% of the masses won't be able to circumvent Level-3's IP-level block, and that's all the MAFIAA cares about.
Re:IP-level blocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is possible to get around these countermeasures, but it will not be easy and probably result in a significant decrease in transmission speeds (sending and receiving). And when these techniques become widely known, they will be blocked in turn.
In short, this legislation will break the Internet. Laughing at the dumb politicians who don't understand technology is a dangerous thing to do because there are no simple workarounds that will keep the Internet working the way we know it if this passes.
Re: (Score:3)
still possible with proxies
I used to work at a place that had pretty draconian blocking policies. They used Websense [wikipedia.org] at full lockdown. Websense would not only block at the IP level, but it also actively blocked proxy sites and proxy lists too. And by "actively," I mean it updated every hour. It was VERY difficult to circumvent.
The point is, if your ISP really wants to block you (and if the government threatens them with jail time if they don't), they can. Even if 1% are clever enough to stay a step ahead of them, 99% will be blocked.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean it updated every hour. It was VERY difficult to circumvent.
And by "very difficult" you mean "trivial with some sacrifice of speed."
My last night-shift job used Webnonsense. SSH Tunnel to Squid proxy. The low upload of my home DSL slowed things down a bit, but it was better than staring at the ceiling while hoping calls came in.
Re: (Score:3)
Now the race begins (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe now we'll see the race to buy "easy" IP addresses. "Visit us at 12.34.56.78".
Now, thinking again, that could actually halt the long-awaited migration to IPv6. Who'd like to see an ad like "find our products at http://200147023aef0/ [200147023aef0]. Please remember the square brackets or you won't reach our website. And the double colon between 470 and 23. Unless you want to fill the omitted zeroes."
Re: (Score:3)
Cue rush for IPv6 deadbeef and variants...
Congress vs the world's 10-million geek army... (Score:5, Funny)
Guess who will win?
Re:Congress vs the world's 10-million geek army... (Score:5, Interesting)
Congress. Because they have more resources and weapons at their disposal than all the geeks in the world combined.
Here, let me give you another example. Do you know why the Berlin Wall fell? No, it wasn't because Reagan gave a speech at the Brandenburger Gate. Or because he managed to fool the USSR into bankrupting itself. It was because when push came to shove, Honecker and Krenz refused to shoot their own people on a scale similar to what China, North Korea or Syria did.
Oppressive regimes only fall if they're forcibly removed from power, or if they decide that there's a threshold of violence they won't cross.
Re: (Score:3)
And what will Congress do about three hackers in Kazakhstan who decide to write something that gets around any restrictive laws and post the code to thousands of blogs, boards and so on? How much money canvthe USA expend on this? It's the equivalent of the Vietnam war in cyberspace, a guerrilla war where you *can't* win.
Re: (Score:2)
Or because he managed to fool the USSR into bankrupting itself.
I prefer to call it a game of economic chicken. First one to brake or crash loses!
Re:Congress vs the world's 10-million geek army... (Score:4, Funny)
"Do you know why the Berlin Wall fell?"
Lots of people pushing at it combined with the fact East German builders haven't got a damn clue about installing a foundation for free-standing structures? Close?
Re:Congress vs the world's 10-million geek army... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress has more resources, but when it comes down to it, who ends up doing all the technical work? The geeks.
I hope it doesn't come down to it, but let the geeks implement exactly what the law requires/dictates. As the summary already indicates, the whole intent of the law has been circumvented with trivial workarounds. Pirates end up essentially unaffected and go on pirating, but the internet in general ends up dealing with the consequences when YouTube, Facebook, et al end up blocked/banned/hijacked.
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress. Because they have more resources and weapons at their disposal than all the geeks in the world combined."
It's not only the raw number that matters - effectiveness is also very important. If you need hundreds of millions of dollars to get rid of hundreds of afghans ... and you want to get rid of 10 million people... that doesn't look very well).
"Do you know why the Berlin Wall fell? No, it wasn't because Reagan gave a speech at the Brandenburger Gate. Or because he managed to fool the USSR into ba
Re: (Score:2)
Oppressive regimes only fall if they're forcibly removed from power, or if they decide that there's a threshold of violence they won't cross.
And you really think that the US is willing to go to the amount of violence displayed in Syria ?
Also it is interesting to note, seriously, not jokingly for once, that geeks do indeed form a community, a society. Not a secret society, but they are a group of people sharing coherent values that stems from their understanding of some technological details. It gives them power, and slowly they are becoming more prevalent in the decision structures. We are gaining effective power that does not translate to vi
asymmetrical warfare (Score:5, Informative)
This is asymmetrical warfare in cyberspace, except all the resources of congress don't count for squat here. Even a small group of motivated and skilled hackers can defeat anything congress can throw at them because congress has no conception of how technology works. Even the contractors they hire are not skilled (ever see a government IT project?). FBI? Please, would a skilled programmer work on cool stuff in the free market for more than six figures or for $50K and more bureaucracy and drudgery than you can shake a stick at at the FBI? Let's stop propagating the "government is omnipotent" meme.
Incidentally the Berlin Wall didn't fall for the reason you stated. I was there then. It fell because Hungary and Czechoslovakia stopped closing their borders to Austria and thousands of East Germans decided to "vacation" there. They crossed over, caught a bus north and hey presto were in the west. East Germany couldn't stop them because of warsaw pact treaties and because russia under gorbachev wouldn't change them. So the government of erich honneker destabilized, was replaced with egon krenz, who in a bid to stop the whole country emptying out opened the wall so easterners could visit and come back. That is why it fell.
Re:Yeah, because that worked so well in China. (Score:5, Interesting)
You misunderstand. I wasn't saying that generic Internet access is impossible in those countries. Even porn in countries like Iran isn't something that's hard to get. What is really, really hard to get is an Internet connection that won't prompt the visits of various burly men in street clothes if you decide to talk about how much better the country would be under a new political system.
VPN proxies are nice, but are the first things to be stopped when things get hairy (and yes, I also have friends in the countries I listed - except NK).
Finally, you are also operating under the assumption that countries won't be able to cooperate on these matters. Look at the US: it's implementing the same technologies that the most repressive countries are implementing. Yes, the goals are still somewhat different, but I can guarantee you that once these legal structures are available in all countries, the Internet will not be able to route around damage, because the damage will be applied to the entire Internet.
Read Lessig's book Code is Law. It makes the interesting observation that code is law - and that consequently, law is code.
The only alternatives will be encrypted darknets, private nets and other things, but those are not the Internet anymore.
Re:Congress vs the world's 10-million geek army... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess who will win?
The first government leader crazy enough to declare martial law and deploy the military, I imagine.
Touchingly naive (Score:5, Insightful)
"So here's some proof that I hope will help them err on the side of reason and vote SOPA down"
Eh... no. If the war against drugs/piracy/terrorism has taught us anything, it is that if the law makers were made to understand that it won't work, they would just try more draconian measures.
By all means, petition them in terms of freedom of speech, cost or restricting innovation, arguing that "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through" will simply make them tighten their grip further.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is exactly the opposite: you are naive and your 3 mods. Technology is on our side, we are savvier zillion times than the congress idiots.
The whole point of argument is that they cannot achieve their goals without harming innocent bystenanders.
In this war we are not moving from cluster bombs towards drones, we are moving from drones to cluster bombs. And the more casulaties the larger is backlash from bystanders - companies that are hurt because of the new law.
Re: (Score:3)
“It could be that a few members of congress are just not tech savvy and don’t understand that it is technically not going to work, at all. So here’s some proof that I hope will help them err on the side of reason and vote SOPA down,” he adds.
*sigh*
T Rizk: "Excuse me, Congress? SOPA is ineffective because it has a gaping hole so just forget SOPA, ok?"
Congress: "Oh T Riz! Bless you you for enlightening us! Uh, we won't prosecute you for hacking. Really."
a few? (Score:2)
"'It could be that a few members of Congress are just not tech savvy and don't understand that it is technically not going to work, at all"
Most congress critters don't have even a clue as to how the internet in general works. Honestly the lack of education with these idiots is staggering.
Congress today is a large group of poorly educated, self serving, sociopath children.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY. Ok, but not everybody gets to decide on internet encumbering laws either, but this is the same kind of thing that happens all over the place. Crazy policies made up by pointy haired bosses that network admins need to implement, even though they don't accomplish much to anybody remotely educated in how these things work. But it stops most people . I have a ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, forgot to close my bold tag, slashdot really should warn you about that.
It does. It's called the Preview button. Why the !@#$ proofreading went out of style, I don't know, but no-one's being forced to be stupid. It's a lifestyle choice.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand, a large part of current US Senators and Representatives pride themselves on never having used the internet.
At all.
http://motherboard.vice.com/2011/12/16/dear-congress-it-s-no-longer-ok-to-not-know-how-the-internet-works [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Congress today is a large group of poorly educated, self serving, sociopath children.
You say that as though you think it ever wasn't a group of poorly-educated, self-serving, sociopathic children.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not wrong, but this guy also seems to think better of his addon than he really should.
His little addon works, at least somewhat, for those sites with a single static IP. It fails at doing anything about the millions and millions of websites, and probably the majority of sites that a bill like SOPA would seek to eliminate, that run on vhosts behind a single IP. Going to the IP of the domain I use for email and as a homepage gets me a wonderful Apache error message; with other hosts, it likely gets
Re: (Score:3)
How can our lords and masters not understand the basics?
"Dad, it's like the phone book. You look up the name of the person/website, and to the right it displays the phone number/IP number. IP numbers are just like phone numbers; every computer on the internet has one"
So that took all of 10 seconds, not the minutes I first said.
How can our lords and masters not understand the basics?
resolv.conf (Score:2)
Just point your DNS to 8.8.8.8
Re: (Score:2)
I assume 8.8.8.8 is hosted in the US which would break it once SOPA is made into law.
Shattered Net (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspected someone would do this since they were basing blocking on domain. essentially SOPA will kill DNS.
people will begin passing raw addresses/ports to each other and you will end up with another dark-net, one where there are no domain names or to access it you have to get a hold of a domain file for a plug in.
soon there will be sites dedicated to the pirate DNS then there will be assholes who distribute bad DNS files leading to pages with drive by attacks. peges will be fighting over their old domain names since there will be no registrar for this dark net.
this security issue will likely push the P2P DNS efforts already in place.
or (Score:2)
we in the rest of the world could stop using american resources on the internet.
and yes, that includes me no to visit slashdot.org anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
So American websites will start moving abroad. And frankly, why not, if the environment there is becoming so hostile? They already outsourced industrial production, why wouldn't they outsource websites? En masse? To protest SOPA et al? The day we hear that Google Inc. moved all its technical infrastructure to Iceland (or some other internet-friendly place), it would be a giant leap for freedom on the Internet. That's kind of s
Re: (Score:2)
and the best part of that is that USA is not gonna get any new money into the country. it's a win-win!
Good old hosts.txt (Score:2)
Back to the good old hosts file.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_(file) [wikipedia.org]
Maybe we will create cron-jobs again to download the newest hosts file from some trusted source.
Re:Good old hosts.txt (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that the list of banned addresses is a secret. It's of national security of course. :p
What we need is a new DNS system (Score:5, Insightful)
umm (Score:2)
Full DNS database? (Score:2)
Speaking about DNS blocking and DNS names. How large would a full dump of the whole DNS system actually be? From the numbers I could gather it be in the low GB range for all the top level domains and easily fit on a DVD, i.e. a rather trivial size in the days of movie streaming. How much bigger would it get by including all the subdomains (I assume you'd need a spider to actually gather those)? How big would daily updates be? In essence would it be possible to just completely bypass the classic DNS and move
ICE (Score:2)
These cowboys better be careful when messing with ICE, it could be black.
Mozilla did something not stupid? (Score:2)
Mozilla denied the request, arguing that this type of censorship may threaten the open Internet.
With all the BS that's coming out of Mozilla these days, glad to see they still can do some things right.
Response from my senator (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the response I got. It made me sad.
Dear Joshua,
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the Protect IP Act.
Intellectual property industries employ more than 19 million people, making it an integral part of our economy. Rogue websites dedicated to the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and pirated content are a direct threat to these jobs and to entrepreneurs growing and building legitimate businesses online.
Businesses have lost $135 billion in revenue annually as a result of these rogue sites. Customers have also been harmed by these sites; for example, online pharmacies that don't adhere to U.S. regulations have been reported to cause a rapid increase in prescription drug abuse.
I am a cosponsor of the Protect IP Act which would cut off foreign websites dedicated to counterfeiting and piracy that steal American jobs, hurt the economy, and harm customers. It would allow the Justice Department to file a civil action against those who have registered or own a domain name linked to an infringing website. The bill does not allow the Justice Department to target domain names registered by a U.S. entity.
Innovation is a cornerstone of our nation's economic growth. Proper intellectual property protections and incentives ensure that inventors develop products that benefit consumers. Without such incentives for innovators, we risk falling behind places like China and India.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.
Sincere regards,
Roy Blunt United States Senator
Re: (Score:3)
which would cut off foreign websites dedicated to counterfeiting and piracy that steal American jobs, hurt the economy, and harm customers. It would allow the Justice Department to file a civil action against those who have registered or own a domain name linked to an infringing website.
So...our plan is to cut America off from those nasty pirates, so that good ol' Americans will be forced to pay full price for content they might otherwise pirate? Does this supposed $135 billion lost annual revenue come entirely from the US? There are so many things wrong with this guy's logic...
Technical workarounds are not the real answer (Score:3)
Every time they up the ante techies realized they could circumvent the effects rather easily, but many many more do not have the know-how.
So the most active knowledgeable users like us develop apathy because we are not really affected, therefore we stay passive, while for the vast majority of users the internet gets more and more restricted. Let's not fall for this complicity strategy.
Re:How Is This an Add-On? (Score:5, Informative)
What's to stop me from entering the IP address without the add-on?
Several things.
First, you have to know the IP address. The point of one of the the plug-ins, as far as I understand it, is that it automatically gets the list of known seized host names and IP addresses for you.
Second is that entering the IP manually presumes that an IP address only has one web host on it. This is far from true - with dynamic hosting, lots of domains share the same IP address. It's by the browser sending "Host: www.somewhere.foo" in the header of the request that the web server knows which host's content to serve you. "Host: NNN.NNN.NNN.NNN" is likely only going to give you the hosting provider's web page, or even just a generic "Welcome to Apache" page for those who haven't configured it.
Oh, and third, have fun entering IPv6 addresses that way...
Re:How Is This an Add-On? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing prevents a plugin from sending additional HTTP headers (e.g. the Host: header) once the TCP connection has been established to the IP address. No DNS intervention is needed for this.
Re:How Is This an Add-On? (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing prevents a plugin from sending additional HTTP headers (e.g. the Host: header) once the TCP connection has been established to the IP address. No DNS intervention is needed for this.
Um, you didn't read the post I was replying to, did you? That was exactly my point - a plugin can do that, but manually entering the IP address instead of using a plugin won't.
And no, the Host: header isn't an additional header - it's a required header (for HTTP/1.1 and above). So a plugin have better replace the Host header that the browser sets, not add one.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution to this is to register domain names at a rate faster than the government can ban them. Do this until all possible combinations of words have been used and there are no free domain names.
Re:How Is This an Add-On? (Score:4, Interesting)
Heh... I was actually musing about how to do this with music. After all, there are only so many combinations of notes - why not have computer programs just generating all possible single measures, then all possible combinations of those measures, and publishing them all online with a claimed copyright? (In the US at least, you don't have to spend money to register a work to obtain a copyright - you actually inherently have the copyright. Registering does have benefits though - but it's not required.)
Essentially, beat them at their own game. (And at the same time prove the silliness of it all. You could probably do the same with works of text as well by using a grammar generator to get legitimate sentences.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure the MAFIAAs lawyers can argue that their song is not derived from your database.
Though woe betide you if your algorithm happens to generate a song that is already held by them. Because of course that is totally different and you owe them a billion dollars.
Re:How Is This an Add-On? (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, there are only so many combinations of notes
Yeah, have you worked out just how many? Assuming 4 bars of quarter notes and using one chromatic octave (12 notes) and rests: 665,416,609,183,179,841 permutations. And that's only tiny proportion of all realistic possibilities.
Re:How Is This an Add-On? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but only so many of those combinations "sound good" - you can probably algorithmically eliminate ones that would make no sense. After all, the goal would be to "protect" the good music, not the "noise."
Rules of music theory are simple enough to dramatically reduce the number of combinations.
(I never said such a thing would be practical, just that it would be theoretically possible. I actually got the idea from the little short story about "society that never forgets" and the unintended consequences of indefinite copyright.)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to copyright all combinations, 12 sets of 3. The first, AKA a tonic, a third and a fifth. Like this; C, E, G. You have just copyrighted a C major chord. How many songs use a C major chord? Copyright all major and minor chords and you own most of western music.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a finite number but it's a very large finite number that is is intrinsically dependent on the length of the song. Long songs means more and more combinations.
Each octave has 8 pitches (ignoring flats and sharps) and there are at least 10 durations (4x whole, 2x whole, whole, 1/2 whole, 1/4 whole, 1/8 whole, 1/16 whole, 1/32 whole, 1/64 whole, 1/128 whole) for any give note, though you can bridge notes together for a single note. In addition to that you can consider that there's a 9th "pitch" which
Re: (Score:2)
Well as cpghost explained here [slashdot.org] there's no reason the plugin couldn't take care of this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. The current version of the hosts file spec, given in RFC 952, was issued in 1985. The first version of Windows to actually utilize a hosts file was Windows 3.1, released in 1992. Unix-like systems had been using /etc/hosts for many years by that point. For what it's worth, RFC 952 obsoleted an older form of the hosts file specification, that dates all the way back to 1974... somewhat before *ANY* version of Windows had been written or even imagined.