Tor is an implementation of i2p. Basically it’s a new protocol that obfuscates everything end to end.
On public trackers you’d be fine since it’s public and ip doesn’t matter. But on private trackers, they usually need your ip to track your activity on the tracker, but with i2p it would be nigh impossible to do so.
I’ve thought about this and wouldn’t it be way more private (and realistically secure given changing IPS) to just use a cryptographical key each login? Like everywhere else on the web?
Tor is not a implementation of I2P. They are 2 different technologies with different usecases.
Tor ussage nodes and hops to obfuscate trafics origin while I2P obfuscates the entire network layer. With I2P every nodes IP is know to every node. Wile this is not the case for tor. Thirth hop doesnt know the IP of the first hop.
Also tor is heavily used to access the clearnet while I2P is not designed with clearnet in mind.
You still got it half wrong. I2P hops don’t know each other. The big difference is I2P tries to make every user a relay while only Tor relays are relays. Hence Tor torrenting is not recommended because it overloads the limited relays, I2P torrenting is fine because you expand the pool of relays at the same time. I2P doesn’t really have exit nodes, too, so it’s a separate network from the internet.
I never said the hops are know on I2P. All the nodes are though because it is a P2P network. Perhaps some bad wording on my part. But yeah your are right
Most Publishers in any Industry are a cancer on society. Cramming DRM in where they can while scalping both customers and creators whilst gaslighting both into believing continuing to shovel money to their overpriced services is in their best interest.
I say most because if there is even a single one doing what they are supposed to do then saying “all” would be wrong and I am aware of at least one offering drm free ebooks (unless you consider an embedded username in the epub file drm) at reasonable prices while (as far as I am aware) not fucking over the authors
The worst development of all has been the „buy but dont own“ model. If I buy anything, I own it. It’s symple, reliable and permanent. Obviously, if I own something, I can sell it. If someone owns a video game, music or a movie, they can sell it. This perverted idea of being able to tell a customer what to do with their bought stuff needs to go.
Man, that’d be horrible! Imagine people could exercise their rights. Thank God we live in a world of zero digital ownership with anti DRM circumvention laws to strip everyone from rights copyright laws are supposed to grant. We can sue anyone that scans books and lends them out 1:1 as that’s untransformative and unfair use. But hey, it’s a free market! Let’s offer them e-books with DRM for $15 that libraries can only lend out 15 times, 20 hours total read time or three months after purchase, whichever comes first, and then jack up the price to $30 when they’re locked into the ecosystem. Sounds like a fair deal to me! Not like they have an alternative.
Cloudflare should discontinue service to music streaming companies or music industry sites. Let the music industry go to war with the internet at large and see how this plays out for them.
Like the Bahnhof ISP in Sweden. They were ordered by a court order from Elsevier (the academic journal extortion firm) to block sci-hub, so they blocked sci-hub and Elsevier journals.
CDN services certainly but not DNS, we’re all profitting from Cloudflare & Co having fully automated DNS because that is the sole fact currently holding back court ordered DNS blocks on a large scale.
The DNS Providers do not discriminate and that fact guarantees them (largely) not being forced to discriminate. Not interfering with anyone’s DNS is the most Cloudflare can do for the piracy community because it ensures Publishers can’t just send an angry email to get a DNS block
At this point its pretty much a moral transgression to buy music from any labels, organizations, or groups filing these lawsuits. If no one bought their music, they’d have to join a mock trial team or debate club and we might finally be able to straighten out the mess that is copyright law. :-D
The music industry welcomed the development, stating that a service that helps infringers evade prosecution through anonymization also acts illegally.
But a service that artificially inflates revenues with shady accounting of song plays while simultaneously withholding payments toward creators, that’s totally not criminal.
-Also the music industry
Copyright laws based in the eighteenth century sure are awesome when applying analog scarcity to the digital world! /s
I’m for publishers and other representatives of the old system pulling away from the digital world close to entirely. Their whole business model requires scarcity that used to exist when creators were on the other side of the world and fans were lucky to have them come within 200 miles for a chance to enjoy them, and in the meantime, want to buy a record to experience them at home.
Now, creators can be in our hands, on our desks, and easily in our living rooms. The middlemen that brought those scarce physical objects to us (records, tapes, vhs and audio, books, etc) aren’t needed anymore, because the distribution of the art or idea is instant and on demand and already paid for by the communications package we all subscribe to.
Fans can connect directly with creators, who no longer need millions of fans to give them a huge slice of overall music (or other creative work) revenue. Just a few hundred devoted fans is enough to live comfortably, instead of being a superstar.
I’m dreaming, though…
ETA: the publishers could rethink their role and evolve to help creatives reach their audience, but, currently, they impede that. Creatives do better (per fan) when they know their fans and can connect directly with them.
Add comment