p2pnet - rss feed: MUTE: new p2p file-swapping app
p2pnet.net came across Jason Rohrer last year through Kast, something he described as the first konspire2b-based app - essentially, ‘Gnutella run backwards’.
He’s also the co-founder of APN, a not-for-profit record label “seeking to promote interesting music” which he founded with Tom Bailey in 1995.
Then, quite a while back Nicholas and Holmes over at DownhillBattle.org told us about a new p2p app called MUTE and created by, Yep, Rohrer.
We couldn’t fire it up then, and we couldn’t fire it up with the latest rev. But we’re on Windows (OK, OK : ) and our box can be a little balky. And as Holmes and Nicholas point out, “The program is still in beta, so it can be a little shaky at times”.
Rohrer tells us 2.1 should be out soon - maybe tomorrow - so we’ll take another shot.
In the meanwhile, Holmes (on MAC) has been able to get it running, no problem, and so have a lot of other people and it’s definitely worth a look.
And Nicholas says: “I’ve been using MUTE on my Mac for weeks - I just leave it on 24/7 sharing my whole iTunes library. As the protocol and the interface matures, MUTE will be the perfect compromise for parents who want to let their kids explore music but are worried about these crazy lawsuits.”
Why? Because, it, “protects your privacy by avoiding direct connections with your sharing partners in the network,” says Rohrer on the download page here. “Most other file sharing programs use direct connections to download or upload, making your identity available to spies from the RIAA and other unscrupulous organizations.”
Good enough : ) And how does it do that? It’s inspired by the way ants behave.
“Ants display collectively intelligent behavior when foraging for food or fighting off predators. Each ant in the colony acts in a rather simple way, but together they end up doing something clever, like discovering the shortest path between their ant hill and a food source. MUTE’s routing mechanism is inspired by ant behavior.”
MUTE protects users’ privacy by avoiding direct connections between downloaders and uploaders.
Whether or not you decide to check MUTE out, it’s worth taking a trip to How File Sharing Reveals Your Identity.
Bottom line:
“MUTE protects the contents of each neighbor connection in the network using military-grade encryption. Though the RIAA might tap your network and see all of your Internet traffic, all MUTE messages would be unreadable. Thus, the RIAA would not be able to corner you in the network or obtain an Internet address in connection with your virtual address.
“Of course, your neighbors are able to decrypt the messages you send through them. Thus, if the RIAA was able to hijack every single one of your neighbor nodes, it could again corner you and link your Internet address to your virtual address. However, it is unlikely that the RIAA would be able to take over a large number of nodes in the network, and since you discover your neighbors in a somewhat randomized way, it is unlikely that every single one of your neighbors would be an RIAA node.”
(January 22: - update >>> Version 2.01 is now available and hums along nicely : )
January 21st, 2004 at 9:59 pm
I see the scenario of people being sued just for running it. The ones the RIAA does connect to it will not differentiate between dirrect uploaders and passer-oners. I don’t think MUTE has a way to verify that you were not the one uploading. sure this would be a desperate unscrupulous organization that does this type of sueing but what would stop them? Ii can see the judges face now “you ran a subversive program that would allow illegal trade knowingly! BAM Guilty!” pay your fine to to jail , join the military etc.
January 22nd, 2004 at 12:54 pm
What is the difference between this and Freenet?
Freenet protects your anonymity, and its routing scheme is also said to be inspired by ant behavior. Freenet has also been around for much longer.
January 23rd, 2004 at 3:42 am
Freenet tries to be like the World Wide Web, whereas MUTE tries to be like a regular filesharing application. That’s basically the only difference.
But it’s a good enough difference to switch– I don’t think people want to run a gigantic HTTP server hosting 1GB of other people’s content just so they can download music!
January 23rd, 2004 at 3:51 am
The same problem was posed with Freenet, which uses a similar model where everyone uploads and you can’t tell who downloads. Freenet has quite a bit of child porn on it. (It is likely MUTE eventually will as well.)
Nobody’s been arrested yet.
January 24th, 2004 at 9:09 pm
ya but freenet doesn’t work
i can’t get more than the frontpage and 1 image every once in a while to load.
February 21st, 2004 at 5:52 pm
Yeah Right. And then CISCO would be sued too, and every other router manufacturer, for routing thousands of illegal packets.
You can buy a gun for target practice, which is legal. But if you kill someone, you go to jail.
Get the point?
Sorry, but file sharing applications are not illegal. It’s the content that matters.
So this will be dismissed on any court of law.
Happy anonymous sharing everyone
March 19th, 2004 at 11:10 am
Here in Europe, you can’t buy a gun if you don’t have a weapons’ license, which is rather hard to get. Laws can be molded to fit the needs of the political elite.
June 18th, 2004 at 12:44 am
There is a new windows only release of the MUTE P2P app that you may want to point out on your web site.
It is available at:
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
the program is posted here near the bottom where it says OTHER RELEASES:
and gives instructions on how to use it.
May 17th, 2005 at 1:54 am
I guess in todays world, you could be sued for running it. Look at what DirectTV has done. They are suing people for simply owning card programmers that could POSSIBLY be used illegally. When congress sold us out with it’s digital rights act, they gave scumbags like the RIAA the right to sue you for what you might have done, or might do, and even if you did nothing, the law says you still have to pay for thier sleazy lawyers. It is cheaper to settle than to fight them, so no one ever does. DirectTV has made untold millions from this legal extortion from people who bought this stuff for a perfectly legal use, but could not afford the fight.
But once in a while it backfires on these mega-corporations. Look what happened with Bill Gates and Ernie Ball, for instance. That caused Microsoft to reconsider it’s strategy.
November 8th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
It’s not true
DirectTV suing people who take money for installing this system on others people boxes. Also you can’t modify rented boxes, because you are not owner. If you have your personal box you can do anything with it.