Talk:Distributed Art

Erik Massop edited this page Nov 4, 2017 · 1 revision

I've got a few questions about the current proposal:

  1. Wouldn't it be better to have a P2P model, instead of needing a central server? Some disadvantages of having a central server: someone has to host and maintain it, server becomes a big, juicy target for possible litigation (legal enforcement of copyright violation re: album art is unclear, AFAIK).
  2. I have doubts about the security of pushing python dicts across the net - pushing them across unix sockets or on a trusted network is fine, but the internet is a wild, wild place.
  3. Multiple image support can be good, since the same album can be released in different countries with different cover art.

Eleusis 07:30, 5 November 2006 (CET)

Responses:

  1. We could host it as a named service on tor, so that would keep us safe from being located, etc. We might implement it as p2p later too.
  2. Proof of concept...
  3. Proof of concept...
  1. will drax and eleusis be in the contact information on the server when all the copyright holders want their warez back?

Why inverting a new protocol? Sounds like http is fine for this? http://distributed-coverart.com/art/deadbeef-1234-4321-1337-0101010101.jpg

http://distributed-coverart.com/name/Bad+Religion/Against+The+Grain.jpg

(that would also mean that it will be very easy to do things like redirect to amazon/whatever. And we wouldn't have to store their data. It could support a way for servers to register, and say "please forward these mbids to me". A pure redirect service wouldn't have the same legal issues, would it?)

Anders Gustafsson 00:25, 7 November 2006 (CET)

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.