Talk:OFFSystem

Simple Analogy

I wrote a simple analogy to help people understand how OFF works, I feel it could benefit this article, but I am not sure where to place it, and my example needs cleaning up and editing.

it is a completely revolutionary type of file sharing service where instead of transmitting the file, it transmits random blocks of digital white noise, which is then put together after it is downloaded..so no one can say you downloaded anything in particular because it is just digital white noise.. think lego blocks..like imagine if i told you to build a helicopter and you need 12 black bricks, 5 red bricks, 10 gray bricks, and a helicopter blade block..so you'd check your bucket and find you already have some of those peices in your bucket but you were missing a few peices so you got copies of them.. and you built the helicopter... and then i told you to build a car and you need 10 black bricks, and 5 grey bricks to make it...you're like "sweet i already have those" so you build the car out of the blocks you already have and dont have to get any more blocks.

Osirisx11 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it but I still disagree with the initial sentence since, what you are referring to is simply encrypted traffic, which is not revolutionary. Additionally the analogy does not go along with the opening statement - it more-or-less says how it differs from other encrypting ones. Additionally, I disagree with the analogy because one does not simply create copies of Lego blocks - one must obtain them somehow by either manufacturing them (very unlikely), purchases them (which could be the "real-deal" or imitation Lego), borrow them, or steal them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Toth (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Analogy does not work. With blocks of several KBytes in size, the chances that two files have common blocks is next to zero. I am removing the analogy, it may be pretty, but it is misleading. There is no question of modifying it, since it's conceptually wrong.15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.183.86.225 (talk)

The assumption that the blocks are nothing but white noise is wrong. Since the chances of producing a block of e.g. 256 Kbyte "by chance" are exceedingly small, they are in fact fingerprints of the files (similar to hash keys) that they represent. 130.183.86.225 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Simple Analogy with Visualization

I suggest the following

Imagine all the files, which are essentially really big numbers, are dots on the two-dimensional grid. Green dots are representation of public-domain works. Red dots are representation of copyrighted works and they become green when their copyright status runs out. White dots are simply representation of randomized data and they are scattered randomly across the entire grid. For any green or red dots, it is possible to find three white dots such that their average center is that of a green or red dot. Furthermore, since every pair of white dots can be combined with a third white dot to centered on a green dot and can be combined with another third white dot to centered on a red dot, each white dot can therefore represent both green dots and red dots. As a result, white dots are non-copyrightable because white dots are both representation of public-domain works and copyrighted works. To find any green or red dots, three white dots need to be provided.

It explain multi-use for non-copyrightability. Secure Bill (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot needed

Could someone please upload a decent screenshot of the program in action? I wiki at work and can't really install programs here. Once we have a screenshot, we should add a sidebar description of the software's version, etc. a la the software template (see freenet for an example of that template applied to similar software). - IndyLawSteve 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kinghajj 21:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone! Maikel (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"OFF System" article

The article OFF System claims OFF System is an implementation of the Owner free file system. However, this article treats "OFF System" as just an abbreviation of "Owner free file system". If that article is correct, this one needs to be clarified. If this one is correct, the articles should be merged. It looks to me like "OFF System" is both an abbreviation and the name of an implementation, but I'm not really sure. Is the implementation ever called "Owner free file system"? Herorev 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off system, Owner free file system and owner free filing system are all the same thing. Off system stands for either of those, interchangeably. I will propose a merge.IndyLawSteve 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they should merge. --Kinghajj 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I've read a bit about it and it seems that they describe a protocol named Owner-Free File/Filing System, while OFF System is the only program so far that implements it. Though the protocol is more of a theory of ideas than a hard protocol; there's a separation between the protocol and program. No merge should happen. --Mike 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting numbers

In this system, each block is 128K long; therefore, the total number of possible blocks is 256^131072. The result of that is a 315,653 digit number, greater than 67.41e315651. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? --Kinghajj 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is like "this is a client which helps you to download copyright protected files". Imho you should remove that.

What are the legal reasons to use this software? Faster downloads if you have already a lot of parts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.183.151.168 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

Is that: "The OFF System is a completely revolutionary type of file-sharing service" NPOV? --JensMueller (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an implementation/copy of Publius

See http://cs.nyu.edu/waldman/publius/ - at this Website the same mechanism was proposed nearly a decade ago.

Anonymous?

So, is it anonymous? The article seems to be pussyfooting around this question. Maikel (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably not, i'll check the design and post later but it looks like a load of bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.49.159 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT anonymous, which is one of the reasons why it is known as a brightnet as supposed to a darknet. It is designed with plausible deniability in mind. Secure Bill (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally biased article

The OFF will not protect you from persecution if you use it to share hollywood movies and pop hits. Not matter what trickery works inside the system, prosecution will simply install an OFF network rig for demonstration purposes and use it show that Britney Spears' "Baby, baby one more time" goes in at one end and multiple copies of it come out at the remote ends. The jury will send you to the cooler then, as they don't care about the randomization of data going on inside or any other one-time pad tech ideas.

with the same arguments, they could use a "network cable" to transfer copyrighted data from one computer to the next and declare the network cable as copyright-infringing device. The jury will then rip you to pieces and lock you up for using a network cable. 83.77.131.128 (talk)

Similarly if you pull the trigger and three people drop dead due to bullet impacts, claiming your AK-47 has a sophisticated built-in lathe to re-cut barrel rifling grooves into random patterns most certainly will not save your from the gallows. Judge will say the events happened at the same time and same place and with the barrel pointed towards the victims you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Otherwise, the OFF system has been debated extensively on Slashdot yesterday and even that die-hard anarchist geek community ridiculized the idea. The general consensus was it is about as efficient legally as the Hans Reiser murder defence, that is it simply won't work.

Here is the Slashdot debate thread: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/06/30/1214220.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OFF system gives you plausible deniability from distributing copyrighted works. If you choose to construct copyrighted works on your computers with the multi-use blocks rather than public-domain works from the same multi-use blocks, you are still guilty of possessing illegal copies of copyrighted works. Copyright violations involve illegally unscrambling/reading, illegally duplicating/writing/burning, illegally distributing/sending/receiving, and illegally owning/possessing the copyrighted works. Secure Bill (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still very clearly biased. For example, the claim "a brightnet shares no copyrighted material[citation needed] because no one can claim ownership any of the randomized multi-used data blocks stored in the system." I don't think its enough to say "citation needed"- in reality, a claim like that has no factual basis. The system is still used for distributing copyrighted material (among other things), and the manner in which it does so makes little difference to most copyright laws. This is basically wishing away the problem by redefinition. Decentralization and plausible deniability makes the system resistant to legal attacks, but nothing about the system resolves the inherent legal challenges of freely distributing copyrighted works. Ian Burnet (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This system is totally retarded!

It's just an online port of http://monolith.sourceforge.net/ . And as the Monolith page states: "Monolith exists comfortably in a world of logical gymnastics. The real world of copyright does not operate in a logical fashion. Thus, a word of warning: if you apply Monolith in the real world, your legal mileage may vary."

If you just think about the idea of that you'll know it's just a loophole and meant to be fixed. They could see that if they xor the data your client sends they get childporn and arrest you. Even DNA tests are only like 99,9997% accurate and they still electrify people cause of them. So it's unlikely your client sends the data by random... unlikely enough to arrest you. That stuff is just a paradox situation created by mixing up information theory with law.

So I think there should be a warning - like: "In theory digital childporn is only 1s and 0s and could be the product of `cat /dev/random`. - But in reality the origin is different..."

So don't wonder if it knocks at your door...

-Dekar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.68.19 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]