Microsoft faces up to (and renames) BlackNet: http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution Peter Biddle, Paul England, Marcus Peinado, and Bryan Willman Microsoft Corporation[1] Abstract We investigate the darknet - a collection of networks and technologies used to share digital content. The darknet is not a separate physical network but an application and protocol layer riding on existing networks. Examples of darknets are peer-to-peer file sharing, CD and DVD copying, and key or password sharing on email and newsgroups. The last few years have seen vast increases in the darknet's aggregate bandwidth, reliability, usability, size of shared library, and availability of search engines. In this paper we categorize and analyze existing and future darknets, from both the technical and legal perspectives. We speculate that there will be short-term impediments to the effectiveness of the darknet as a distribution mechanism, but ultimately the darknet-genie will not be put back into the bottle. In view of this hypothesis, we examine the relevance of content protection and content distribution architectures.
-- According to Microsoft, http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc Darknet is being undermined by free riders. : : Peer-to-peer file sharing assumes that a : : significant fraction of users adhere to the : : somewhat post-capitalist idea of sacrificing their : : own resources for the "common good" of the network. : : Most free-riders do not seem to adopt this idea. : : For example, with 56 kbps modems still being the : : network connection for most users, allowing uploads : : constitutes a tangible bandwidth sacrifice. One : : approach is to make collaboration mandatory. For : : example, Freenet [6] clients are required to : : contribute some disk space. However, enforcing such : : requirements without a central infrastructure is : : difficult. The obvious solution is to monetize the darknet services, with very small payments, payments that would typically ad up to five dollars a month for heavy users or heavy servers -- that is to say, a half a gram of gold a month. Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism. We should get an anonymous micropayment system working, interconvertible to real money, or real e-gold, then apply it to such applications as mixmasters and darknet. Allegedly yodel is such a system, but yodel is connected to e-rand, which is connected to some people who fail to inspire me with confidence. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG beO567eji82JoZMjbN1JCWL6vQBr301pkVztKIR+ 4HzLNwHtW3q5fJqUcxtmJZ0gjqfcEJvGFfMRkWY0c
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, James A. Donald wrote:
Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism.
Mojo ultimatively failed because MojoNation failed. MNet is very alive, though, and it will get a new mint eventually. What I didn't like about Mojo is that the developers didn't treat it like a currency which it was. If your client doesn't care about Mojo, why should you? If you treat currency like toilet paper, it's not worth very much.
participants (3)
-
Eugen Leitl -
James A. Donald -
Nomen Nescio