Slashdot Mirror
AOL Snuffs Napster-Workalike Gnutella
K2 (and many others -- Thanks!) wrote with news about Gnutella: "Just when open-sourcing was becoming mainstream, they pull the plug on it. I just read this on Wired: Open-Source 'Napster' Shut Down. If anybody got the download yesterday, could you make it available somewhere? (That must be legal based on the licensing it was given away under.) Thanks." According to this article, Gnutella was "an unauthorized freelance project and the Web site that allowed access to the software has been taken down." Note also the media companies linked to AOL (Warner and EMI).Update: 03/16 03:01 by H :Check out our original story about it.
Check http://allskin.com/gnutella/ for a fan-created webpage, containing news, info, and links to all known released versions.
Try This Server with Gnutella 12.36.100.13 It should work
When was America ever a shining beacon of decency? On another point, how is this gnutella "problem" different from the internet as a whole? If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. If you want to contact somebody's ISP, what's stopping you? What's stopping you from providing all kinds of gnutella content about what's really wrong with this country? Anti-porn datribes? Telling people to actually pick up a bible and read it for themselves instead of spouting out about their own personal beliefs and trying to call them God's?
The number of people murdered in name of Christ since christianity exists runs close to a billion (10^9).
- Jews throughout all history
- muslems in all ages, especially during the crusades, the muslems were never came close to the cruelties done by Christians in that age
- slavery, justified by christianity
- colonialism and its aftermath
- can you say 'northern Ireland' ?
- can you say 'beirut' ?
- the pope himself just apologied for all evil done in name of Christ. But still people are infected with AIDS because they can't use condoms because of the church
- America never was, and still is not, a cool place to live. Thank God I'm born in Europe. The mindset of the 'good Christians' (of the KKK for instance) still runs rampant in parts of America. And it sure did in the 'glorious days' you rever to. Heaven knows the blacks didn't have their share of those days.
The Christian self-rightious attitude makes me sick, and is responsible for hundred of millions of dead. None of the other religions is that dangerous, not even the Islam, that in its pure form is quite tolerent towards other beliefs.
You need to get a clue, sir.
Despite everything people here on Slashdot know about the real world they still insist that applications like these are a good thing despite the deeply criminal purpose which they are intended for. I mean in theory you can say "Oh Napster's just for sharing MP3s that you own the rights to" but let's face it, the sole true purpose of Napster is to trade illegal MP3s. Knowing just how popular illegal MP3s are, the creators of Napster devised a program which would allow, even promote, the rape of the music industry and the artists they represent. Every time you use Napster you are taking money away from people that have put their time and effort into creating a piece of art which enriches the world.
And now we have Gnutella, which incidentally sounds like that horrible chocolate spread which only the French could enjoy, a program which does the same thing as Napster, but which is designed to be impossible to shut down. And people wonder why companies like Time-Warner are concerned about this and want it shut down before it can be used to deprive artists of any more revenue? If you look at it from a corporaion's point of view this program is a direct threat to their economic well-being, and hence a direct threat to the lives of employees working for them. Given enough people using this sort of piracy tool you will see people losing their jobs and being thrown out onto the streets.
And let's not forget that Gnutella allows all kinds of information to be spread across the Internet. Not only illegal MP3s, but other illegal and immoral content - pornography, terrorist manifestos, race-hate propaganda and anti-Christian bigotry. How are we supposed to eradicate these blights when they are available over a distributed network of servers which is practically impossible to shut down?
I urge /. to consider this before automatically crying out about how corporations are oppressing your rights. Gnutella could have the potential for unmatched harm, and AOL are perfectly right to prevent it from reaching the Internet.
www.geocities.com/phattrip if you want a copy of gnutella. Enjoy.
Got it up here for now...
http://www.geocities.com/adonnaixg/gnutella.zip
Anyone who plans to release controversial opensource software like this shouldn't keep it under wraps until they release the source, to avoid bringing the Powers down upon the project before it's too late.
Absolutely! As someone who spent time as a professional student, I had to explain (on more that one occasion) that the faculty and staff were my employees and that I was their employer (note the direction of the cash flow as evidence). After explaining their position in life to them, they were invariably much more respectful.
The only reason universities get away with the things they do is because they are (typically) dealing with younger people who have not yet learned that they can assert themselves. (Life is much better once you can successfully pull off the "grumpy old man" routine!)
Anyway, for some substantiating evidence, look at the "continuing ed" programs (typically restricted to those over 25 - i.e., those who won't put up with stupidity) and note the differences in rules and requirements.
Also, consider the situation of students who attend part time and also work for industry. Where does that leave the university's claim to your work done on your equipment on your time?
-- OpenSourcerers
My point was not that they were my direct employees in a tax collection or regulatory sense. My point to them was that I was the one who had engaged their services. They had contractual obligations to me.
From "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition": Employ - To engage the services of.
Since they were university professors with a comprehension of the subtleties of the English language, they understood me perfectly well. No one humored anyone.
Notice it is perfectly good usage to say "Fred employed a hammer to drive the nail". In that sentence Fred is the employer and the hammer is the employee.
Your final sentence was childish (and consistent with the tone with the rest of your post) and added nothing to the discussion.
-- OpenSourcerers
I don't know about non-blockable, and I can't really call it a clone, because it goes beyond napster, but it will do mp3 if that's what you're looking for.
Check out the Open File Sharing Initiative, an Open Source, Open Protocol project that will allow sharing of all types of files, not just mp3.
-kidlinux.
Slowly the freedom to do anything is being taken away by the AOLPolice!! As well as the rest of the lobbyists, goverment, MPAA, RIAA! The internet is slowly turning into a police state. This is just the first!!
I guess it's time to start rethinking the Net in general. Is it possible to build an alternate network of computers using just non-commerical computers via a VPN. Redistribute an alternate web run by and for private citizens via that private network. Where anonynimity is truly key. Considering in someways that is what these product do. And if no one knows who you are and they can't necessarily find out what is on who's system wouldn't it become harder to sue the entire network since there would be no single person with control?
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Yeah but freenet is more of a server that needs a client. Rather than a network that you log into that is anonymous.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Drop me a line at chardros@nospam.linuxkb.org (drop the nospam) and I'll post it.
I really don't know of any clause where I went to school and I never had to sign anything.
Actually, I would be surprised if the Uni's drew students attention to their intellectual property laws by being so blatant as to have you sign them. By matriculating to a Uni, you agree to follow all their rules and regulations handed to you in a nice big thick book of legalese, often at orientation (ie, after you've registered).
McGill University's Intellectual Property Rules.
At my Uni, the normal intellectual rules are: if it was created for school/using school equipment, the school owns half. However, the big exception is software. At my Uni, they're trying to push through a change in Intellectual Property w.r.t. software that would mean that if it's related to your major (any programming at all if you're in ECE or CS), the school owns all rights. Of course, since the board of governors are not responding to requests for information, I'm not sure whether it's because it's tabled for later or because they're trying to do it quickly and quietly.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
Point. When I was hired, the company agreement said that it had rights to any software I wrote. Naturally, this could be broadly interpreted as them owning rights to stuff I did on my own time on my own equiptment in areas not related to any that the company had business interests in. So I wrote nothing on my own time.
This company got absorbed by a larger one (well actually it is more complex than that but lets simplify) and the new agreement said that if I
- used their time
- used their equiptment
- used their knowledge and/or techniques
- explored into areas they had business interests in
If I did any one of those things then they had exclusive rights to what I created. But anything else was not. So naturally I'm a lot more productive now!(Interesting sidebar -- the company I work for is Canadian, and the new American owner is much less concerned about what it has rights to -- the new agreement is much more focused on limiting any potential claims I may have against them.)
This is an important issue to discuss with potential employers. I make it a point to mention it during the interview before any offer is made, and make sure they understand that it is a dealbreaker after the offer is made.
Read those agreements, people!
--
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
And at least a dozen were listed in a Score-5 reply to the previous Gnutella story! (Search for `crapster', I dunno the comment-id.)
More is always better (I suppose?), but get a grip, people.
--
#19845
Actually, depends on where you signed this.
California has had a law since around 1980 that took away a companies right to claim anything you developed on your own time using only your own resources. If you used ANY company resources they can claim it, or did it on their time. Thus, I'm pretty sure that any such clause in a contract in CA is invalid. From my understanding, you can't be compelled to give this right away.
Not a lawyer, but your mileage may vary. I do know that my employer was the one that notified us of the law and notified us that that portion of our employment agreement was now void.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
This is Offtopic, but this is the last time I post.
Take a look at this particular thread. How the Hell does moderation WORK on here? Take a look at this subtopic 'Re:Slashdot warez kiddies'.
Now notice the ones that got moderated UP. The ones that were all on one side of the board (Napster is for pirated software). Every other opinion was NOT aknowledged. I, personally liked the one guy who said, "Is CuteFTP to blame for pirated warez?". THATS A GOOD FUCKING POINT. I would moderate that up for that sentence.
Moderation sucks on here. Now, I am sure you moderators will now get angry and moderate this down, I dont freaking care. Out.
You forgot the most obvious one. When you get in and close the door, a cheerful voice will announce:
"You've got gas!"
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
You do know you can dodge such things....
Honeywell used to have just such an agreement, and it even required an equally strict non-competition clause. A colleague said "that would mean I'd have to divest my interest in a company, and my partners would both want to wring my neck". The manager promptly inked out both clauses.
And this wasn't for a senior person, either: it was for an entry-level job.
--davedavecb@spamcop.net
Relative morality is a slippery slope, my friend.
You seem to think that there is an RFC on morality or something, there is not. Morality changes from culture to culture. Those in power get to impose their morality on the culture.
--fatboy
I don't want to use it for piracy. I want to use it to distribute samples of music that I write. Please note that I am neither a "warez" nor a "kiddie." (I detest those cute little spellings anyway.)
I agree whole-heartedly. I don't see anything fun here, just facts.
--
# Ed -- amo, ergo sum
# amo, ergo sum
V> How is that in any way different from the internet itself, you fool?
Well, Internet contains a lot of legal and good material too. But how many of the songs available via napster are legal?
I'm not against software like napster, but I understand those other opinions too, and am concerned about the effects they will incur.
--
# Ed -- amo, ergo sum
# amo, ergo sum
m> morals of our age (remember the days He here were much worse then m> these) or would he speak out against the church? I think it would be m> the church. After all people curse the name of God becuase of the m> actions of so called Christians. The church has choosen some stupid m> battles in the past and present. I think you could agree with me on m> that. I consider myself a Christian but I think we should live by m> example, not by condemnation. Be a light to the world, not a m> resounding gong.
Well, as a Christian, I'd like to answer:
Yes, I believe Jesus would be very, very angry because of the bigotry and false people in Churches, and I believe he'd attack the Church.
I, too, often say that the worst enemy for Christianism are us, who obey His directions so badly. And worst of us are bigots.
Still, I cannot say that our days are better. Yes, cruelties in so-called civilised countries are much more rare than in eg. development countries, but this is also an illusion: most if not all large corporations involve in activities which kill thousands of people every year.
For example, many toy-producing companies don't even want to know about the situation in their factories in the far east - most of the workers are practically young (female) children slaves. Their wage is almost non-existant, and often they are chained and locked up during the work day (which lasts usually over 10 hours).
You all would be surprised to know how many of the daily products you use to buy cause people to suffer or die horribly. I didn't know. But I found out, and part of me hopes that I would never have. This information is available for anyone interested, though: at least here in Finland there are several organisations researching illegal child labour, environmental abuses (which often indirectly causes severe human injuries) etc. After I read a book discussing these things I'll never more buy Coca-Cola, or anything from that company, or go to Shell when the car runs out of fuel.
Add to this common deterioration of moral - so called free sex, pornography which distorts the idea of actual love-making, ever-increasing superficial ideas and values, selfishness, ignorance, greediness.. and yes, I too, even as a Christian, have fallen to each of these sins. And I know I will sin as long as I live.
Idea in Christianity is not to point out other people how bad they live. This is something a Christian can (and should) do, but not by promoting him/herself. If such is the case, I'd say she's not a Christian.. the main thing should be to focus on herself and try to do as little evil as possible. According to the Bible, a man cannot do this alone without Christ, and this is something many, many Christians have found true, as I have too.
I'm weak, evil and selfish. With the help of God, I'm able to do good every now and then, though it seems like this is very, very rare :(
--
# Ed -- amo, ergo sum
# amo, ergo sum
Best way to request that would be to irc onto efnet and #genutella and request it
You buy it, you consent. I see no problem with this, as long as the license is made available to users, or users have the option of returning the software in the event that they disagree with the license. Sharing information is well and good, if everyone who "shares" the information is willing to compensate the author. You can't have it both ways -- if you want to share the information, you should be prepared to share in the costs of compensating the author. Anything less is freeloading ( though slashdot is becomming a haven for the "freeloader community" )
I thought the moderation was interesting too. I was expecting to be shot down in flames by the moderators ( especially since my post was deliberately inflammatory ), but it looks like I've struck a chord here. Or maybe I'm just telling the side of the story that you don't see much of on slash. Anyways, don't get all uptight. Even if no-one's moderating your complaint up, some of the people who posted intelligent replies to my post have got +1 or +2. So your point about "biased moderation" isn't really much of a point.
Yeah, I was almost waiting for someone to raise this issue. It's a good point. I addressed it in another post.
Personally, I hope/think that artists will start taking advantage of technology, and the decreasing costs of distribution, and bypass the "middlemen".
Nothing. I'm a graduate student in math, I have no financial interests in the music biz.
Sorry to dissapoint you, Mr. Holyer Than Thou... but I actually use it to disperse my friends OWN music that he makes. W/O glorious Napster and even the MP3 phenomenon
Calm down. I'm not at all dissapointed if it helps artists who want to share their music. However, I object to "sharing" things against the will of the author. My objection is mainly to those in the slashdot peanut gallery who are acting as though this program is good because it makes piracy easy, not inspite of it.
Ummm, ...
Did your university take you out for dinner before they
Seriously, why would you have to sign away your rights to software you develop. That's stupid. I know some working environments have these contracts, but a university?
Sigh,
I never sign these contracts. My employer has a right to 8 hours of my day. I refuse to sign over any of my design. Frankly, I have better equipment at home than my work provides.
It's my opinion that signing over all ideas that you develop without compensation is the worst form of slavery there is.
Lando
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
And this hasn't been moderated down to a Troll?
An employee of a company makes and open source version of a program that is used by thousands to pirate goods of the kind that your company produces, and you're not meant to have a go at them?
Any media on this planet can contain illegal copies of copyrighted material, does that mean all media should be banned.
Don't think so, your argument that nutella (the software) should be banned because it may be abused or contain material that you or people like yourself feel is objectionable really does fall apart.
Remember that at one time Christianity was objectionable material to the authoritories.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
So you are in favour of race-hate campaigns, terrorist propagranda and bigotry in all its forms?
No I think he was in favour of using the material to educate, to install understanding and hence the material loses it's power and is exposed as the garbage that it is.
Remember what being a Chritian was like in the first 200 years, you are merly spouting the same propaganda as the Roman empire at the time.
Rather than censor it, why not expose it as the garbage it is.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
And as soon as your kid starts the program up, what's the first thing he sees? A huge list of pornography, bomb-making instruction manuals and virulent anti-Christian diatribes.
Have you used this program, do you know that this is the first thing a person sees? Trust me if a kid wants to find this info out, unless you monitor them 100% they will. I do not know of anyone who as a child did not manage to find information out that thier parents would have gone ballistic over.
Children need to be protected so that they can grow up to be good, decent, Christian people.
Children might need to be educated so that they know why things are morally wrong or not, protecting them from the world only makes them more vulnerable to these ideas that you want to protect them from.
A good decent person does not equal only a Christian person. Now for example how do you know that this technology could not be used to propegate Christian viewpoints in regimes where they are banned or stamped on by the state.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
to what you have just posted.
It would make him weep.
BTW What colour was Jesus's skin?
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
I know in California, these clauses are disallowed. Even if you sign, it's unenforceable. So, where is AO-Hell anyway?
something like that is legal in your country?>p>if he lives in the US, no, it is Not legal. nuff said.
Always Always Always Cross Out The "We Own Everything, Every Thing You Touch, Every Utterance, Every Waking Thought, Every Subconcious Imperative, Your Soul" Assignment Clause.
Long ago I asked an Copyright Lawyer (back when I thought I was hot s**t) and he said these were probably not enforceable, but back then you couldn't get Software Patents either.
I always write in language to "...limit the assignment to work product produced at the specific direction of Faceless Corporation..."
Interestingly corporate legal departments hate this and try to jam bad contract language down your throat anyway. Don't fall for this - if the clause is non-enforceable, they don't need it, right? The joke is it still costs you money to ditch a non-enforceable clause, and it still takes money to defend against the attempted enforcement of it. Better not to have it, so you don't have to worry about idiots attempting to extract your immortal soul with hot pincers...when you're all atheists anyway.
Where do you think RMS gets off being such a stick in the mud, eh? Don't give an inch when it's your genitalia and the other guys has a Sawzit!
If something gets a large number of upward moderations it will get a 6. It is very rare, but as you can see it happens.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
At least get a clue....
Artists need the royalty's from their CD's to survive... Only the mega popular acts actually make money on tours. Most artists go on tours to promote their CD's. It's more of an advertising expense than a revenue generator.
If you really at all care for the artists, i strongly encourage you to give this a read. You'll see that there's already plenty of people out there screwing artists over, that fans really shouldn't start as well.
Just LET THE ARTISTS decide what they want to do.
:) Yeah, it may not hurt, but you're going to smell like cheap warm beer all day long... Probably get some form of rash as well, if you lay out in the sun or anything like that.
I'm sure you'd be annoyed with me if i started thwacking you with a foam, beer soacked mallet without asking first, right?
I just don't think it should be the fan's choice how as to how an artist distributes their music. Granted, they can suggest or request new formats, but they shouldn't go around distributing artists songs in the new formats unless the artist has given their explicit okay.
That's all good. But what you can't do is sign a contract, have it signed, and then start changing terms.
That was the decision that THEY MADE when they signed up... They got a cash advance. They got a nice studio to play in. And, oops!, they sold their soles.
Besides that, there's plenty of smaller labels out there that, shock!, let artists decide... It's fun to see some artists with no downloadables, some with MP3's, and some with RealAudio all on the same site.
But if an artist really sees mp3 distribution as a major issue they want their labels to acknoweledge, they can voice these things... If it's a big seller, i'd bet a label would rather accomodate their wishes than see them walk. But you don't see that happening, do you? Very rarely.
I'm reminded of TiK and TNT... two GPL AOL Instant messenger clients.
They were written by AOL employees, and had web pages up on the www.aim.aol.com for some time.
The pages were taken down (but not the links to them from the main www.aim.aol.com page) around the time that Microsoft started leeching on AOL's servers.
The links to the pages were taken down when AT&T started lecching on AOL's servers.
The only trace left of TiK is an entry on Freshmeat, and any copies that people downloaded before the disappearence.
In most cases, anything a college student knocks up in their spare time isn't going to be worth making a fuss over.
From what I've seen, the number one thing college students "knock up" in their spare time is other college students. On that side of the Pond it may mean "put together" but on this side it means "get pregnant".
But in principle, I agree with you: the most interesting piece of code I wrote as an undergrad was a widget (in TurboPascal, this probably dates me...) to automate the administration of Purity Tests. However, it's still a bad policy with a lot of really unpleasant ramifications (for example, IIRC Simon Marsh wrote the popular talker daemon ewToo while a student at a British Univ.).
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Well, it's nice to hear that someone still runs on platitudes like goodness and freedom. Are you sure you didn't want to reply to someone else instead?
Either way, it was very pleasant to see a post by a Christian advocate leading a good life by quiet example rather than passing judgement all the time. If there were more level-headed, calm religious people like you around, I might end up involved in an organized religion once more.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
One would hope that this "cost cutting" would hurt their business in the long run in terms of technical problems and schedule slippages. Theoretically, the use of a geek walkout in these situations could eventually force such companies to change their ways. I'm not sure that your average exec. would make the connection between lower-quality techies and lower-quality results, though.
I can't argue with that (says I on company time :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Or is everyone busy trying to connect to napster servers with it?
If someone wants to make a running IP available, we can start a gnutella conga. Or does no-one run windows round here?
Check out the kinda sucky wired story
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
IM(NS)HO
Actually, radio stations usually play a poor selection of music. The reason is somewhat interesting. When there was just a little music released in just a few varieties, then DJ's could make a reasoned selection based on their audience. Now, however, there are fewer DJ's, more varieties of music, and more individual pieces of music (it's much easier to cut a CD than it used to be to cut a 45). So the DJ's are swamped. So they make a narrow focus of what kind of music they'll even look at, so they'll have a hope of getting the good ones. But most people like some other kind of music than ANY of the DJ's choose. So in the opinion of most people who listen to the radio (see previous letter).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You are a dumbass. A GPL'ed program can be redistributed anywhere, anyhow. Therefore, slashdot is becoming a haven for free, GPL-software. OH NO! We all know GPL is a virus. /. needs a virus scanner!!!
does anyone have a copy of the original product description that was on their website before it was taken down?
Sometimes, I wish AOL would just fuck off.
Just wait, soon we will have the realplayer verison of winamp (ugly ads, etc... thats why i refuse to use realplayer, its too much crap). AOL (trust me, Time Warner name will eventually be phased out) is quickly becomming a behemoth and the way to stop them is ordering the FTC to stop the merger. Yes, order them. We are 'the people' and if you check our constitution, you'd notice that its all about the people, not some greedy corporations. Down with corporations, up with apple pie.
-=chiphead
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Wait for more information to become available.
</end niceties>
What right does AOL have to stop these people from writing software on thier own time? I'm not a software writing kind of guy but is this even legal. The only thing I can think of is that AOL can stop them from using the "AOL *CAN* bring you good things" line.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Generally artists don't really make much off album sales (until you have a string of hits and your first contract is fulfilled). Most artists of the type you described make money off two things, performing (which is the bulk of it), and if they are smart, songwriting. If a new artist comes out and his/her CD is heavily pirated, even if we assume that every person who got the MP3 would have gotten the album, but didn't, the vast majority of the losses would be taken by the record company. The artist would lose very little actual money. What could happen, however, is the label might not push any future projects by that artist because of the lackluster sales, but I have never seen that happen to an artist who had any kind of decent following. I know that both Usher's and Bobby Brown's first albums flopped, but the company had confidence in the marketability of the artists, and approved new releases. A heavily pirated artist would be handled in the same way, I suspect.
"Logic . . . merely enables one to be wrong with authority"
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
You know, the thing that I have always been conflicted over is that if I don't want anything of mine shared, I can do one of two things: 1)not release it. Nobody is forcing me to give away some secret of mine, or 2) Enter into a contract with others so that they do not give it to someone else. I am very uncomfortable with government enforcing contracts stipulated by one party without having the explicit consent of the other. The purpose of a copyright is to benefit the public, not the artist/creator.
Now, I see some very good reasons for copyrights, but not being able to share information you have freely with others is pretty alien in human history, so don't be surprised that people generally don't do it. It's like religious laws against fornication. When people got married at 15 or 16 years old (earlier some places), this was a widely adhered to principle. Now that (at least in the West) extended adolescence is the norm, and normal marrying age comes in the early to mid twenties, is it any surprise that this principle is generally not adhered to?
"Logic . . . merely enables one to be wrong with authority"
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
Ah, there's the rub. You don't have to buy it to consent. If I find a promotional CD on the side of the road, I still am bound by these laws. Normally, if an action is brought against someone for breach of contract, you have to provide evidence that the contract was agreed to. That is not necessary with copyright. The violator does not even have to be notified. I am not saying that these measures are unnecessary or unwarranted, but I think the matter should be examined carefully, especially in this day and era, one in which intellectual property is starting to generate most of the wealth.
"Logic . . . merely enables one to be wrong with authority"
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
What if they don't want to tour ? Shouldn't they be payed(sp) whether they tour or not ?
I'm a great blacksmith.. but all my jobs are out
of town. Shouldn't I still be paid if I just sit at home?
What I'd like to see are artists who distribute
their mp3s without getting involved
with the major record companies.
Personally... I've not bought a cd that was produced
by any old, well known, bloated record companies
in the last 10 years.
If you look... all the good music being put on cd these days are all small
record label companies.
The mainstream stuff is just trash.
I've heard better music coming from my air-conditioner
and computer than some of these 'so-called'
bands that get promoted these days. *Sheesh*
Makes me sick sometimes.
And yes... I too have bought 28 cd's in the past 5 years
that I never would have if I hadn't heard the
illegal MP3's that I'd downloaded from friends.
Number of CD's I've bought
from hearing songs on the radio in the last 10 years?
None!
I want to buy cd's by the track...
not the complete album.
Don't make me buy an entire album of music to get one
track that I like.
Real Artists produce music because they have to for
their own self satisfaction...
NOT for the money.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Electronic musicians don't tour?
What about Orbital? What about Crystal Method??
What about... Jeeze, a whole crapload of "electronic"
musicians that tour?
That's not the point though... the point is that
the industry as it stands now is an inefficient
dinosaur that prevents the really good musicians
from making the money they deserve for their
talents.
An increasing number of people DON'T listen to the
radio anymore, they listen to their own cd's that
they've purchased. The ability to take the tracks
from freinds as mp3's and burn them to cd's to make
their own custom audio is increasingly making the radio
even more obsolete. The radio is the pander baby
to the recording industry and the media. *shrug*
when the industry changes to where the money is made
in selling single tracks to be burned onto one cd...
Then you'll see the majority of bands either changing
their tunes.. or going out of the business.
The only way for them to make serious money would be for
them to create an entire album of GOOD music...
If their music is sold by tracks... what's the incentive
for them to make a cd with only one hit selling song on it?
I'm not gonna buy the whole album.. that's just dumb.
Once again... Number of CD's I've purchased in the
last 5 years from hearing ILLEGAL Mp3's of them.
28... Soon to be 35 (Income tax return check).
Number of CD's I've purchased in the last 10 years
because I've heard the band on the radio?? NONE!
I may be the exception to the rule right now.. but
it's changing in my direction more every day.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
There is not yet any official work yet on whether gnutella is going to be canned.
AOL Snuffs Napster-Workalike Gnutella is a inaccurate and makes me think less of slashdot.
Phillip
one of the nice things of gnutella is that it's self sustaining, so if you can find one server you are all set and can continue
since gnutella is both a server and a client the netwerk can keep itself going for who knows how long
kinda lika the internet worm from years ago
"You are not everybody."
That's the point. Neither are the people who use napster illegally.
Mike
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
22. Mailboxes across the USA would be filled with AOL tires, which only fit AOL cars, as their invitation to buy one.
23. Beverages across the USA would be resting on AOL tire coffee tables.
Yes! Yes!!! Thank You!!!
Sorry... but speaking as one who spent a vast amount of time making such "compilation tapes," it amazes me that I'd forgotten all about them during this hoopla. Yeah, yeah, I know, radio stations pay the record labels for every song they play (pfffft) and that's why it's different........ yeah, yeah....... They're just not happy unless they're bitching about something.
By the way.... you know, I have a lot of MP3s I downloaded that are actually on albums -- that's "vinyl," kiddies, not CDs -- which I own. Are those illegal too because I don't own the CDs, just the LPs? Hmmmmmmmmm?
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
If AOL sees Gnutella in the same light [a threat to music media interests], the Nullsoft employees may not be able to continue development.
We told you so.
What happens if MP3 itself becomes the threat to traditional music media? What happens if AOL decides VQF is the right way?
As AOL gets bigger, the noose tightens. Not just on the consumers, but on the kids who thought it would be kewl to be bought by them.
"We Own Everyone" - Conglomo slogan, from Rocco's Modern Life
"We're a multi-billion dollar company" - AOL ad, under the heading 'Reasons to use AOL'
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
I said, in my last post, "I told you so."
I can remember, months ago, when Nullsoft was bought by AOL, that it was widely touted as A Good Thing. Frankel's gonna make money. Great. He'll be able to make a living doing something he really loves. That's great too (and many of us at least like our jobs even if its not our dream job). And Winamp became freeware, great -- but even my cheapskate ass paid the $10 before it did, and I think I've registered a total of three apps over the past six years.
Perhaps when Nullsoft was bought out, AOL wasn't as much a Big Company as it is today, post-merger(s). So AOL picking up a small company with a successful product didn't seem like a bad thing, even though almost everyone here agrees AOL is evil, bad, and wrong. We joke about AOL users, decry their behaviour on Usenet, and grumble about our bosses not allowing us to keep that ALL: aol.com: DENY in our hosts.allow.
But now AOL is not just an annoyingly dumb and large ISP; they now control a major cable/TV/movie operation, and soon major music production operations as well. They're becoming a multinational media company which will soon control some of the largest communications operations in the world. And in an era where threats of legal action have not only become cool, but remarkably effective even without action, AOL's protection of its own interests aren't only going to hurt other companies, and consumers, but certainly those small companies they suckered into being bought by them. Like Nullsoft.
A lot of us predicted the Nullsoft purchase would start going down this road; and regardless of whether we were primarily worried about Justin's creative freedom or our own MP3 collection, it's going that way. Many chose to ignore it, and focused on Justin's financial success over his prolificness, liberty, and quality as a software developer. But how often is it that we admire financial success over technical success? Do we admire Bill Gates, tycoon of obfuscation, or ESR, champion of OS? Do we prefer Ira Magaziner to Jon Postel? Khaled to jwz?
It's bothersome when some people refuse to see the darker side of the coin until they actually have to try and redeem it.
Justin and the Nullsoft crew will either have to suck it up and go do something else in AOL land, or else quit. (Mark my words, Shoutcast will come under AOL's fire by the end of the year.) Maybe Justin will get a kick out of designing and implementing some "AOL Music Download Format" or developing some "AOL Instant Secure Musicplayer". He'll have to put Winamp in his past as a fun project of some misspent youth. The handful of us who resist the AOL-sponsored replacement for MP3 will still be running an 'old, sluggish' abandoned Winamp 2.6 on our Windows 2001 machines.
All I can say is that jwz didn't put up with that shit, and that's why I admire him more.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Ahh, but Gnutella IS general purpose. It's basicly (uless I am mistaken) creates a distributed network with other GNUtella processes wich act as a big ftp-like server, with an FTP-like client built in. This is no worse, and no more inherently illegal or immoral, than a "bank" of Windows shared drives.
Maybe I missed similar comments in the original story, but why is the release of an "open-source Napster clone" worth an entry in slashdot? After all, there's already an open-source Napster clone that's been in development since January, probably earlier:
http://opennap.sourceforge.net/
I don't know how robust it is -- but then, I don't know how robust Gnutella is, either.
And heck, if you're looking for an open source
Napster client, there are zillions.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars@larsshack.org>
Are you trying to argue that musicians shouldn't be paid for writing and recording music
Umm, actually yes. Of course, playing music and selling music are good ways to make money. And you should probably be real good at it. Hey, here's a way I'll know if you're any good regardless of your geographic location, personal appearance, sexual orientation, political leanings, or anything else that might keep you off the radio, RELEASE YOUR WORK TO THE NET!! Jeez, how much money do you spend on music during the average month? And if you are only thinking about how many CDs you buy, this conversation is pointless.
And why should digital recording mandate sharing ?
Not mandate, I'm not forcing anyone, and wouldn't even if I could. But I can pressure them. I do have the ability to say "Hey, I'd really like it if you did this." If you want to reatain *absolute* control over who listens to your music, I would avoid recording it digitally. Digital just makes sharing *real* easy, cost effective, global, instantaneous, and a whole bunch of other cool words.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
it is voluntary. If they don't want to share it, they make sure it's never recorded digitally. Seems pretty simple to me. I would agree with your first sentence if you'd just drop the "If".
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
And the typical person out there isn't going to want to sort through a million unsigned Hootie and the Blowfish soundalikes
No that's why they can go use Napster and find the band that their friend was talking about, or they heard about someplace, or read about on a website.
Distribution isn't just about getting it to people, it's about getting people to want those products.
I totally agree, but what I would rather is that the promotion and distrubution move to a more distributed environment. If you allow people to freely pass digital music, demand will surface. It's why I got the CD I'm listening to right now.
because there's a certain guarantee of quality there.
Yes, but I'm not sure that means what you want it too. Unless you think the Spice Girls are musical geniuses.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
Executives make these decisions, not the people who work as sysadmins, DBAs, Webmasters, etc
Exactly, so why pay the huge salaries of people who make decisions like this?
(hint: because they make lots of money for the stockholders)
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
One of the first things they are going to do is called "You've got Music" and continue the push advertising that AOLers must love so much. TW will also push AOL TV this summer, oh and they found about $50 million/yr in "elimination of redundant corporate costs." For a fuller article try Electronic Media (deadtree, emonline.com doesn't seem to be responding, oops, now it works, too bad it sucks...)
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
Agreed. Quite tasty; it's available stateside too (even in NC).
You are familar with the concept of supply and demand right? As a way to determine value, eh? When supply is infinite, the price is.....?
If the artist can't afford to make music, then the supply is 0. Regardless of the economics of distribution, the economics of production will always be expensive. Home studios have inferior acoustics, qualified engineers are better than amateurs, session musicians are often necessary. All of these things cost money.
And record companies aren't going away. Perhaps some will break. Perhaps new ones will appear. But who's going to provide recording money, who's going to sort out tours, promotion? Most bands don't do it well. Most bands don't want to do it. And the typical person out there isn't going to want to sort through a million unsigned Hootie and the Blowfish soundalikes. They'll go to the corporate sites and pay for downloads, because there's a certain guarantee of quality there. Distribution isn't just about getting it to people, it's about getting people to want those products.
Cian
I'm a great blacksmith.. but all my jobs are out of town. Shouldn't I still be paid if I just sit at home?
Totally bogus analogy. The artist isn't sitting at home, he's working writing music AND recording it. Not everyone can tour (electronic music in particular), not everyone wants to. And in that time that they're touring, they generally don't have the time, energy (and in the case of electronic musicians) resources to create new music. The longer the tour, the more time you have to wait for new music.
All of this of course rests on the analogy that all tours make money. Many don't. Quite a lot lose money, and the costs are treated as a promotional expense. The better the show, the more likely it loses money. The less like a standard rock group the band is, the more likely it loses money. Just because it worked for Black Flag, doesn't mean it would support Square Pusher.
Real artists often have children to support.
Real artists often don't have the energy for a day job, and to create music.
So how's that going to work for Squarepusher? Or Oval? Or bands who use overdubs and technology to create sounds that can't be created live. What about bands who are really good on record, but really suck live? Not everyone's in a garage band.
And the Steve Albini letter? He's talking about bands on large record labels. The terms for bands on indie labels can often be pretty good. Of course they might only get $2, but most of the rest is eaten up in distribution, promotion and creation. Some of those costs will go, but some will always be with us.
I'm sure the pro-MP3 contingent is the same people who used to have "Keep Music Live" bumper stickers.
Cian
No, just a walking, talking, cliche
Signed musicians hardly make anything from recordings. If an artist holds all the rights on a
recording then can make about $4 per CD sold.
Well possibly. But out of that they've got to meet recording costs, promotion costs, legal costs, etc. And they've got to pay those costs ahead of any sales for the most part. And if the record bombs, they have to eat those costs. Currently record labels eat those costs, and hence take all of the risk. The current arrangement is very unfair to artists, but it's not quite as unfair as some people seem to imagine.
Now, keep in mind that most artists do not have many rights in regards to the recording--they sign that away to the record companies!
...who paid for that recording. Though admittedly, the artist normally ends up paying for it out of their royalties. Dunno, grey area this one. Rights revert.
This basically means that they do NOT get paid per recording.
This is rubbish. They get paid royalties for each recording. If the recording doesn't recoup the record company's bizarre definition of costs (everything), then you don't get paid. The extent to whic this is true, depends on the artist and how switched on they are. Don't forget, most recording artists get screwed because they're lazy and greedy.
They may get a signing bonus but be damn sure that they HAVE to tour to make money.
Depends. True of some artists, other artists lose money touring, but do it for promotional reasons.
It used to be that musicians would tour to promote a recording.
Most still do. I'm not convinced that that's a good thing though. Tired of waiting for your favourite artist's new record. Have to wait for them to finish touring first...
Now most of us don't see many indy artists! We pay out the rear to see the Stones, or the Eagles (just examples folks).
Don't see this changing. Most people like offal. Haven't noticed the internet changing that.
No longer does an artist tour to promote his/her work (unless they are indy, Ani DiFranco has an INCREDIBLE tour schedule and STILL releases more recordings than most) hee/she tours because that is the only avenue the record lable they signed thier life away to will let them make any cash.
Actually touring is still the best way to break a new band in America.
Now, computers have given artists the ability to exist outside of the labels. There is absolutly NO WAY that Ani DiFranco would have been able to do 20 years ago what she has done over the last 10!
Rubbish. There was this little thing called punk... Fugazi and the Dead Kennedies were doing it in the 80s. The internet and computers make it easier to run your career, but it's never going to be easy, and most bands either won't be particularly good business men, or will just lack the energy.
Digital power has finally made the umpteen-million-dollar recording studio of
yesterday obsolete!
Well sort of. Good acoustics are still important though.
The Internet will make the traditional marketing-chain obselete! More Ani's will flourish in this New Media age. Not because they want the money, but because the love what they do.
Yeah, heard that one before. I suspect things will change a lot less than you think. Some artists will take advantage, a few will do well out of it, most won't.
If they are good, they will become popular and the economy of scale will give them the money they need to tour/promote/continue doing what they love.
Doubt it. Most people's taste sucks. That isn't going to change.
Cian
I enjoy buying my music...but I have a hard time finding what I like in the local stores. By downloading various tracks I can find out if the artist/music is what I'm looking for...then I can buy the appropriate CD without worrying about whether or not I'll enjoy the sound. That's the best of all worlds...I get what I want, if a middleman supports the artist it gets paid and the artist gets paid. In many cases, if it hadn't been for the ability to download tracks I wouldn't have been able to buy the CD...wouldn't have known about the artist/CD involved. Granted there's a lot of piracy involved...but there's a lot of people buying as well.
gnutella was released under the gpl, but the source won't be available 'till version 1. .491 and i personally don't think any updates will be around soon.
currently, it seems frozen at
whether or not it is legal to do this with the gpl, i don't know. Maybe it was okay with corel's "in-house" alphas, but a publicly distributed binary proclaimed to be under the gpl? i dunno.
-----
-----
Ping? PONG!
I just can't tell anymore if you believe this or are just trolling for the fun of it. I mean, xtianity has devolved to cliches, and it is easy to parrot this stuff out, I should probably write a script to do it.
My personal favorite is Knapster.
-idealego
Right there's you, who still has the same buying habits (which doesn't say that you don't have illegal MP3s), and the rest of the napster/gnutella using world who definitely have illegally aquired music.
Dumb or desperate artists don't make squat. Smart artists make decent money of their CDs. On one hand you have TLC who signed an exceptionally bad contract and went on to have one of the best selling CDs of all time and still were declaring bankruptcy. On the other you have Garth Brooks, Sting, Price, etc. who all are exceptionally wealthy and can make money strictly off their CDs if they wanted to.
there is nothing that states that the current binaries are under the GPL (AFAIK), so i think the intention is to apply the GPL to the code once 1.0 is released. at that point, the source code will also be made available as required by the GPL.
The parent comment to this has a Score:6 rating. Is there a new moderation system in effect, or is this just a glitch? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ideology is for ideots.
jmh3@engr.uark.edu
john
-- john
What Pandora's Box? I guess you don't remember the story. In the story it was GOOD that the box was closed. The story is that once the box was opened, you can put things back in.
In the case of Gnutella, I won't say that it's good or bad that it got out (OK, I'll give my opinion - It's mostly used for illegal copying, which is wrong). It's just that once it's out, you can't make it go back
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I came across this URL http://freenet.sourceforge.net
They want to build a web, where you cannot say, where a particular file is stored and therefore making it hard to take any content off of it. Have a look, seems quite interesting to me.
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
Software Engineering, Development, Systems Administration
Program Manager - BS degree in Computer Science or related discipline. Knowledge of C/C++ on UNIX is essential. Supervisory experience preferred. Responsible for technical management of large development programs.
Systems Administrator - Degree in Computer Science or related discipline. Must have at least 1 year of administration experience with UNIX as well as Microsoft Windows NT, 95/98. Experience with Netscape Messaging Server, Directory Server, and Calendar server a plus. Experience with integration of UNIX and NT a big plus.
Systems Support
Systems Support Engineer - BS degree in Computer Science or related field and minimum 1-3 years experience in a system administration position is desirable. Provide customer support by assisting with administration of UNIX workstations and system software and hardware support Ideal candidate will have experience with C and shell programming , a working knowledge of UNIX system administration and networking, and experience with hardware configuration and integration. 30-40% domestic travel is necessary.
Registered Radiation Technologist/Certified Medical Dosimetrist - Must be a certified RTT or CMD with minimum one(1)year experience. Provides in house and on site applications training on Treatment Planning System and Film & Water System. Provides customers with product training, support and prospect demonstration. Will include technical assistance to engineering department and demonstrations at trade shows. 30-40% domestic travel is necessary.
Medical Physicists
Medical Physicist (Product Development) - MS or Ph.D. in Medical Physics and 1-2 years of radiation therapy experience is preferred. Background in IMRT, Inverse Planning, and /or Monte Carlo Simulation is desired. Position assists in the development and support of our Focus Radiation Treatment Planning System. Responsibilities include maintaining knowledge and understanding of radiation treatment planning, system feature research, development of systems specifications, training members of teams on clinical aspects and requirements of radiation therapy treatment features, clinical advisor to teams, developing technical documentation and training customer support personnel. 10% domestic travel is necessary.
Medical Physicist (Customer Support) - MS or Ph.D. in Medical Physics and 1-2 years of radiation therapy experience is preferred. A thorough understanding of 3-D RTP, including beam data requirements and acquisitions, clinical knowledge of dosimetry, External Beam Therapy and Brachytherapy is necessary. Responsibilities include participating in data acquisition for and acceptance testing of the FOCUS RTP system, providing technical assistance to customers including training and phone support, participating in product demonstrations and exhibitions, assisting our sales and marketing force and providing input to product development. Travel to trade shows and customer sites is necessary.
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Assistant - QA/FDA background preferred to assist the QA Engineer & the Documentation Manager. Should be proficient with MS Word & Access Database design and maintenance.
It's a cool place to work, email me at sdfan@ehiggins.com for more info!
Earl Higgins
Is usually described as "chocolately," which indeed it accurate, but chocolate I think is not the chief ingredient. It's actually a hazelnut spread. Rich, smooth, spreadable -- try it once and your toast will never be the same.
I'm not sure why it's so little-known in the US (though it's certainly not *unknown*), because I think it's moderately popular in Canada.
I was happy to see a project named after it:)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
It is also happening in telecommunications. I would be surprised if it didn't happen anywhere where software is involved. I would love to know how enforceable this really is.
Don't worry - it will be done. I give it another two weeks, and we will see something, with source code and all. I am sure it will shut down, but not before the source leaks.
Who knows, maybe the guys at Nulsoft will leak the gnutella code in some manner, before the day ends. This all isn't a matter of "if" - but "when". I suspect "when" is REAL-SOON-NOW...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
How long before we start seeing claims such as "She never would have had the idea in the first place if she hadn't seen the format specification while working for my company, therefore it is developed using our comapny's intellectual capital and we're claiming a 30% stake in it. As it violates her employment agreement with this company, it also renders the GPL invalid."
All we need now are NamShubs to stop people dialling up porn/warez/gnu sites before they even *think* about doing it.
Is there anything that can be done about forcing people to include NamShub clauses in their contracts?
X.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Funny topic line... Hackers is one of my favorite movies to re-watch.
"This is a wakeup call to the Nintendo generation. We require free access to information. Well that comes with a little responsibility."
(or something)
Ok, I should lose this argument by default because I can't even spell correctly...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Really funny. Must be a new moderator hit the wrong button.
1000 SlashDot sigs
Executives make these decisions, not the people who work as sysadmins, DBAs, Webmasters, etc. If everyone did as you suggested, not only would the execs not understand what was going on, they would just hire new people who know less at a lower salary. Then they would pat themselves on the back for a good cost cutting measure. Companies run on profits, not platitudes like goodness and freedom. I don't like it, but thats how it works.
AOL probably won't have to prove when the work occurred.
A. Just about every large company has contractual clauses stating that whatever you invent during your employ belongs to the company. Now, granted, these things don't always stand up. However, when the product in question is directly related to the work you were hired to do, you're on very shaky ground.
B. Calling themselves Gnullsoft was cute, but there's an obvious relationship in the name to Nullsoft, which is now owned by AOL, which could be used to prove that they were working as agents of AOL.
The whole thing reeks of naivety. They were trying to prove that just because they sold out to AOL, they hadn't lost their souls, and that they could still do whatever they wanted to. Guess what? They were wrong.
The GPL might have been Justin's biggest mistake. AOL does give software away, but they tend to want extreme control over how it is used and distributed. AOL actually might have approved of development of an mp3 server, but it would have been done with Warner's input, and would definitely have relied on some proprietary server interface ala Instant Messenger so they could shut out other companies' client software, thus generating more visibility for AOL.
I hope that we can soon come up with a good way of giving our money directly to the artists rather than 95% of it going to middlemen that are needed less every day.
I hope the music industry goes down the tubes too, but it is not a forgone conclusion. Producng music is currently a complicated task involving more people then just the musician. We need a combination of easy online promotion which is more effective then radio, cheap technology which trivializes many of the music production and editing jobs, and local human networks for the musicians to find their own production conenctions (like CD printing, web design, etc.). Still, it is a god time to be an online musician. A few of the current batch of online musicians are going to make it big without the help of the record industry. A few buisness tricks for online musicians:
(1) ``spam'' some of your songs at people who probable want them, i.e. set up scripts to upload some of your songs to lots of pirate sites and push them on people in napster and IRC. Clearly, these sorts of promotional songs need some sort of advertisment for your web site and the additional songs people can DL.
(2) Make your releases maintain people's attention, i.e. put up live stuff, diffrent mixes, pre-release songs that you are just working on. If you release enough good stuff you will keep yourself in people's minds. ACtually, people may get addicted to always having something diffrent (sorta like online comic strips). You can eventually charge for people to DL older stuff (via some sort of online fan club membership).. and no pirate site would bother to keep all your older shit.
(3) Once you have lots of lisseners sell lots of shit (hats, shirts, audio CDs, mp3 CDs), but keep giving lots of music away too, so that people stay interested. Pete Abrams of Sluggy Freelance should be one of your role models.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
From the mirrors, all I could see were windows versions.
Cheers,
Rick Kirkland
WRAL (the Raleigh CBS affliate) recently ran one of those lame human interest stories about a local band. The band (can't remember the name) posted some mp3s and order information on their website. They are now selling all over the world! They guy was talking about how great it was. So you're right, mp3s are hurting artists in about the same way a foam mallet over the head (soaked in beer) might hurt you or I.
Myddrin
closed OS, should be closed apps.
i first got all excited thinking there was a good napster clone, then saw it was for windows. wont help me any.
i have absolutely no use for any app for a legacy OS.
this only proves more that information just wants to be free in the fact that theres a trend toward freeing information in that there are SO MANY WAYS to make it easier to distribute it. The internet IS viral and considers any censorship as a threat which it then evolves defenses for. I was beginning to worry that the government and corporations were going to begin gaining more control and locking down the net but now a new distributed idea comes along between gnutella and freenet. I just cant wait to see what other new revolutionary concepts have yet to come down the pipe, the revolution certainly is NOT over!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Well it's like this: The about section of the program (and indeed plastered onto the window itself) is copyright Nullsoft, Inc... Not Justin Frankel. So It'd be kind of hard to argue otherwise.
-- r . m o s q u i t o --
Unfortunately the source was never released so this is probably the last version. Also it is not possible to force them to release the source under the GPL since they are the original authors and have every right to withdraw the license.
Fort Worth, Texas, July 9 (AP) An examination by AOL revealed last night that Open Source Sotware Gnutella found on a lonely Nullsoft website was just a harmless high-altitude weather balloon - not an open source napster. Excitement was high until Roger M. Ramey, head of the AOL legal forces, cleared up the mystery.
The bundle of source codes, executables, and remnants of a balloon were sent to AOL yesterday in the wake of reports that it was an Open Source Napster.
But the legal staff said the sofware was just the crushed remains of a ray wind target used to determine the direction and velocity of winds at high altitudes.
Irving Newton, forecaster at the AOL weather station here said, "we use them because they go much higher than the eye can see."
The weather balloon was found several days ago near the center of Nullsoft websites by websurfer W. W. Brazel. He said he didn't think much about it until he went to Slashdot, and heard the Open Source Napster reports.
He returned to his computer and downloaded the wreckage of the balloon, which he had placed under his favorites folder.
William H. Blanchard, supervisor of the Nullsoft group, reported the find to Ramey and the object was sent immediately to the AOL offices.
Ramey went on the air here last night to announce the Nullsoft discovery was not an open source napster.
Newton said that when rigged up, the instrument "looks like a six-pointed star, is sivery in appearance and rises in the air like a kite."
A public relations officer here said the balloon was in his office "and it'll probably stay right there."
Newton, who made the examination, said some 80 weather stations in the U. S. were using that type of balloon and that it could have come from any of them.
He said he had sent up identical balloons during the invasion of Okinawa to determine ballistics information for heavy guns.
Maybe I'm just being dense here, but what did they actually do wrong? It looked to me like the only fault was creating it. Is it wrong to write something that acts like someone else's program? I realize there's the whole patent issue, but I didn't think that AOL had a patent on Winamp. hmmmmm...
In the game industry, companies always put language in their employment contracts that state that any work done by employees during their tenure at the company that relates to the purpose they were hired for belongs to that company.
I would not be surprised if other industries do the same for their programmers. Especially a media company like AOL. Gnapster certainly would fall under that category.
I don't know how enforceable the language is... anyone?
This writer is most likely a non-Christian trying to make Christians look stupid.
Example: I could say I'm a Democrat and then (with a straight face) proceed toward a speech on how we should confiscate everyone's tax return and give it to the Save The Homeless Lesbian Truckers Ecological AIDs Awareness Fund.
I don't know about you, but I usually don't get an mp3 unless I've heard the song on the radio first.. and if it's a new group and some of their other stuff sounds good too, then maybe I'll go buy it.
I'd find it hard to believe that the radio doesn't influence you at all...
Thank you brother for saving the Proggie
from'The Stark Fist Of Removal'may prairie squid
gird your loins all your days.
*
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Anyway, in order to take down these evil corporations legally we just need to take away their funding. Easy, huh?
How do AOL, Time Warner, Disney, the RIAA and the MPAA get their money? From the stupid masses who go out to see 'Mission to Mars' or whatever that flop of a movie was called, because they were told it was a good movie from companies affiliated with the MPAA. In fact I bet the whole movie was created for nothing more than getting people to pay to watch it. No artistic qualities whatsoever.
To put an end to this we need to create media and distribute it for free under a license similar to the GPL. If we started creating mp3s and mpeg video of anything that interrests us and begin giving it away on the 'net we might start to get people interrested in working with free media that they don't have to pay for and don't have to worry about any legal reprocussions for distributing it or sharing it.
mp3.com is a great start for something like this, but can we edit their mp3s and create new music via mixxing or sample editting or redistribute the music on cds and sell it? I think all software and media should be given away under a GPL like license that allows people to even sell music and stuff they don't own, because this is true freedom and just leaves the responsibility in the hands of the consumer as it always has been.
We won't notice any negative effects on these large corporations for a while, but the less money they get from the ignant masses, the less they have to spread mind numbing media hype. Who knows, maybe someday we'll figure out how to make a great movie without spending millions on special effects, and instead just use a few linux boxxes / beowolf clusters and a lot of time programming POV and editting frames in gimp. I would love to see a real open-source movie studio start up.
And I suppose that if you were an MBA, wrote a business plan, the UNI would own rights to the future business?
Hardly.
Sometimes I think geeks let themselves get taken advantage of too often. As was previously posted, you are paying the school - not the other way around. I assume you also pay a technology fee ? Couldn't this be construed as rental of the equipment you are utilizing?
just my $.02. - jerdenn
And how about we all get together and strive to resist ? I think we all have the knowlegde, opportunity, and now the moral obligation to become an awful thorn in their foot.
Well, of course, this is what we should do. The problem is getting a significant number of us to agree on what we should do, then how and where and who. I'd love to be part of a group responsible for taking down these greed-filled corporations, but I won't be part of a group that wants to and splinters because it can't decide how to work together. I just don't know what we could do that would work. If we could decide on that, I think we'd stand a pretty good chance of changing things around here for the better.
Eruantalon
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
"I'd find it hard to believe that the radio doesn't influence you at all..."
I find it hard to stand to listen to the radio at all. Sometimes it makes me so angry, they play the same crap, over and over and over again, just for $$$, not for anyone's enjoyment at all! I only listen to the radio for certain shows on a college station.
If it were not for mp3s, I would not have bought 1/3 of my entire cd collection (legaly bought) simply because I would never have heard of the artists.
The big record labels find a formula and churn out "music" based on the formula. They cater to the lowest common demoninator. They also own the communications (eg. Time-Warner) and media which distributes this music to the consumer, telling them that it is cool. Now, this would never work if people weren't so fackin stupid as to believe what companies tell them! If there were no more stupid people, the radios would have to play good music for people to listen.
Do the world a favor and kill a stupid person today.
And no, I don't mean take their life, I mean educate them so that they aren't so stupid!
>Napster is used 99.999% of the time to download *illegal* music.
Do you have some proof for this claim?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
"Musicians, for instance, will be able to use the self-publishing capabilities of the net to increase their visibility without having to go through the interference of the record companies. Instead of making money from recordings, musicians will make their money from touring and promotions. "
Actually, this isn't so different than today. Signed musicians hardly make anything from recordings. If an artist holds all the rights on a recording then can make about $4 per CD sold. Now, keep in mind that most artists do not have many rights in regards to the recording--they sign that away to the record companies! This basically means that they do NOT get paid per recording. They may get a signing bonus but be damn sure that they HAVE to tour to make money.
It used to be that musicians would tour to promote a recording. Now most of us don't see many indy artists! We pay out the rear to see the Stones, or the Eagles (just examples folks). No longer does an artist tour to promote his/her work (unless they are indy, Ani DiFranco has an INCREDIBLE tour schedule and STILL releases more recordings than most) hee/she tours because that is the only avenue the record lable they signed thier life away to will let them make any cash.
Frank Black, refering to his Pixie days once said (and I paraphrase) that while he did, in fact, make money, the suits (label execs) made at least 6 or 7 times what he would.
Now, computers have given artists the ability to exist outside of the labels. There is absolutly NO WAY that Ani DiFranco would have been able to do 20 years ago what she has done over the last 10! Digital power has finally made the umpteen-million-dollar recording studio of yesterday obsolete!
The Internet will make the traditional marketing-chain obselete! More Ani's will flourish in this New Media age. Not because they want the money, but because the love what they do. If they are good, they will become popular and the economy of scale will give them the money they need to tour/promote/continue doing what they love.
Viva la New Media!
"I'd find it hard to believe that the radio doesn't influence you at all..."
I don't. The vast majority of the music I buy (and I have quite a bit) came from word of mouth or stumbling across something way cool.
Does Ani Difranco get air time? I don't think so. How do you explain my collection of her stuff?
I have found that most good music (a subjective term) does not ever make it to the radio! Even bands like Pearl Jam have the best jems tucked out of radio's sights.
I can honestly say that I have personally purchased more CDs due to sampling MP3s than I have from the radio. My wife started using Napster recently and she has bought more DCs in the last month thatn in the last 2 or 3 years combined!
Let's face it, many mp3 rips are done poorly. I much prefer to buy it and rip it myself. My entire CD collection resides across a few hard disks in my house. I NEVER even crack the jewel cases open anymore!
IMHO, CD players are all but a thing of the past.
Has anyone successfully run gnutella on Linux (vmware doesn't count)?
I tried to run it on wine but when I tried to doubleclick on the searched items nothing came up in the download view....
bp
"If I removed everything here that I thought was pointless, there would be like two messages here."
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
I can host it. Drop me a line at russell@straylight.eu.org.nospam, dropping the nospam of course...
Then we agree totally. Sorry if I overreacted, I had thought you were blaming the tool. I use Napster myself. Just a bit ago, I found a long out-of-print song on there, that I hadn't been able to find anywhere else - right then I was a Napster fan.
Maybe I'm just mad at the RIAA, and am just showing my rebellion, I don't know. What we need is a moderation system for unsigned artists - I mean, on mp3.com, how do you sort the good from the bad? Maybe they could have different reviewers, we could listen to favorite songs of different reviewers, and decide which ones to listen to. I don't know any good answers.
Yeah, you're right - Napster isn't sqeaky clean. At least legally. Ethically, I have no idea. Who's the bad guy? Probably both.
I just wish Napster could be used to share zips, tar.gz's, rpms, etc... it'd be a whole lot more useful to me, and make themselves look a lot more innocent.
"No, you don't. In the case of software, you buy a license, which clearly costs more than the price of duplicating media. The payment is primarily to compensate the author. It seems only fair that the author, as well as the distributors, should be compensated."
Okay, then I guess we have a difference of opinion there - I always thought EULA's were a travesty, even if only because I couldn't negotiate different terms. I believe we should respect the author's liscensing terms - by that I mean, if it's a restrictive, lawyer-trash liscense, don't use it. I guess in that way BSD is freer than GPL, but I got nothing against either.
I thought the shareware model worked great for this. I have actually registed shareware, too. But when you pay a company for a piece of software, that money goes to the bosses, not so much the programmers. It'll reach the programmers, but unless they have profit-sharing, it doesn't give the programmers another penny when I buy their product. That bothers me a little, but what can I do about it?
"Well that's a nice theory, but there's an immediate consequence, and that is that creators of intellectual works should only be compensated in "information", and that they should forgo all material things, because their productivity has no material worth."
You're right, that is hard to swallow. I, for one, sure would like the great artists of our time to get rewarded.
The system we have has major and obvious flaws, but at least it rewards artists. Well, what if we all become artists? If worth times supply equals demand, as supply goes up, worth goes down. If we're all artists, then maybe only the really great ones will shine. We'll need a way to dig through the mud to reach the diamonds.
"You say yourself that information isn't free of cost. So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system?"
Remember the Slashdot Beanie 2000 awards? There's one way to reward artists, limited as it is. I don't know the answer. We will need a new system. I'm a Libertarian, myself, so I trust in the free market to give us a solution.
User Friendly posts comics, lets us read them for free. They collect money from banner ads, and ask that people not mirror them, so UF gets the money they deserve and need. That system works, though not very well, it's good enough for now.
"So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system ? "
"By applying them. (note: this is not to say the copyright idea should be nixed, just a reply to a hypothetical)"
Thanks for your support, Wah, but I'm afraid I don't understand. Applying them?
I really would like a new system for rewarding artists - copyright based on legal thugs obviously won't hold up, nor is it ethical, and banner ads are fairly limited. I think real artists should get more than banner ads seem to be giving them. On the other hand, maybe that's the free market's way of saying that that's all they're worth. I hope not.
Foogle, what are you saying? Just because a tool is used mostly illegaly, that makes the tool bad? It does not.
The concepts that went into making Gnutella and Napster are very, very useful in making a distributed file-sharing network. It's not perfect yet, but soon we can have file sharing networks where millions of people can download the latest kernel without clogging, or cdrom images, or the latest *anything*, without a slashdotting or DoS'ing of any large file server.
File sharing, not file serving, is what this is about.
Yes, Napster is usually used for music copying. (nobody murdered, no ships ransacked, not piracy)
Nuclear power was first used in the slaughter of countless Japanese civilians.
VHS VCR tapes became popular beacuse that's where the porn was.
VCR tapes are not bad, Nuclear power is not bad, Napster is not bad. The *users* are at fault, not the tools.
"Maybe it's time to create a new internet where Open Source can thrive, as well as projects like Gnutella, Napster and DeCSS."
One word: FreeNet
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php
Designed from the ground up to make censorship impossible and authoring anonymous - even if you can find the author, you can't bully them into taking it down - because they can't take it down.
"You can "negotiate different terms" by taking your business to a different vendor. However, if all the vendors are using draconian terms, then it's a sign the vendors have too much power"
:) I like it, personally.
Aye, and that's exactly my problem with our current system of copyright - it hands all the power over to the publishers and vendors, and power corrupts. We need a system that rewards the authors, not the bosses and publishers. Of course, that situation will resolve itself as people start writing and publishing for themselves, so that's no worry.
"That sounds fair enough. BTW, does the GPL count (-; (I'm going to have to get Berkeley DB, because I can't link against GDBM )"
I guess it does, in your case. But then again, that's why we have different liscenses.
"I don't get your point. I don't think "we'll all become artists" any time soon."
My point is just that competition tends to improve the quality of work. More artists can sometimes mean better art. That's theory. What I know is that when anyone can be a publisher, the artists can set their own terms. IMHO, this is a good thing.
"Yep. I wrote a HOWTO, some miscellaneous perl bits and pieces and contributed to vim ( an award winning project ). So -- where's my money ?"
The big limit, of course, is that only the high-profile volunteers tend to get noticed. As companies IPO, or get rich, they may decide to give back by giving grants to deserving volunteer projects. I have no idea how that will turn out, but I'm not holding my breath for any money, I don't expect any. I haven't done anything worth money yet.
"This system is a nice way of rewarding and recognising volunteers, but can you honestly say that anyone would write free software for the money ?"
No. Programmers might band together and work on open source projects and decide to share any donations, or one of them might get a high paying job and everyone live on Ramen noodles, but someone who writes free software doesn't expect to get paid. That is, with the exception of people working at RedHat, or Mandrake, or Walnut Creek, or any other companies that write or sell free software. They are still exceptions.
"Well, tell us when you have it."
We have it already. RedHat, etc make money off writing and selling free software. FSF gets donations, User Friendly gets banner hits for writing free comics, as does After Y2K. Fanfic, whatever you think of the quality, occasionally gets one of their stories sold. Alan Cox gets paid to write free software he believes in.
Not all of us can go that route, but kudos to those who can.
"Well if the free market can give us a solution that's more efficient, then it will produce such a solution whether the copyright system is there or not."
Yeah, it will. Let's hope the lawyers don't ruin too many of us in the meantime.
"IMO, we won't find a better system."
I know what you mean, but IMHO, we will. It may take awhile, a revolution always does.
With AOL now looking to protect 'corporate interests' with the Time Warner media divisions, we'll see a *lot* more of this.
While everyone rails on Microsoft as a complete monopoly, Steve Case is a lot closer than Bill Gates ever was to controlling both access and content. (At least most of M$'s web plays have not really succeeded)
The really disturbing thing is that most AOL users either don't notice or don't care... *shiver*
the fact that some congressmen think you should go to jail for doing something doesn't mean it's immoral. the idea that politicans are somehow moral beacons for the rest of us strikes me as hilarious. and just because the music industry jumps up and down whenever they think they might lose some control over artistic expression doesn't mean that they deserve to have that control. and just because napster and its cousins can be used to violate copyright doesn't mean that this is their only purpose.
It's mostly available in the States at Trader Joe's (a specialty gourmet grocery store, mostly on the West Coast), although I've also seen it at some of the larger Safeway stores.
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Thank [insert random diety here] for that. If this page is accurate, that means we still might get the source... once the source is out, nobody's gonna be able to stop it.
----
Don't underestimate the power of peanut brittle
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
You are the kind of Christian that deserves respect.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
A storybook created by some guy off in the middle of nowhere that had too much time on his hands.
and on a side note... you're condemning socialism and communism, yet begging for everyone to become equal through Chrstianity... did you ever stop and realize that the *GOAL* of communism is for everyone to become equal? Therefore... christianity = communism?
Get your head out of the '60s. This is the year 2000.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Yes, but, see.. the sad part about this is... there *ARE* people like that running around...
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Question: What's the difference between a fan of say, "Neon Genesis Evangelion" telling people who like other anime series that what they like is for dorks and someone who likes Jesus telling people who are in other religions that they are dorks?
The difference is that the Eva fan doesn't go out and actively preach that what they like is the ONLY *REAL* anime, and that if anyone watches anything else, the allmighty god Gainax will smite them and they will burn in hell for the rest of eternity.
You know, I heard somewhere that anime is starting to be uncool again, just like it was when I was watching Star Blazers back in the 70's, you wouldn't want to be caught being into something uncool would you? The new fad is those "cup-and-ball" games, you'll be really cool if you leave anime to dorks like me and get into that.
I don't watch Anime because I "think it's cool". I watch it because my (now ex) girlfriend introduced me to it and I liked it.
You apparently think you're better than the people who have just gotten into anime. Not all people who have recently started watching it are doing it just to look cool. Some of us actually watch because we like it... If anime is going to be un-cool, then so be it. It's what I like, and I frankly could care less whether people think I'm 'cool' or not because of it.
Just because my 2+ years pales in comparison to your 20+ years, it doesn't mean that I'm merely a wannabe.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
... but World != America ;) There are lot of countries, where word "MP3 piracy" does not exist. Why I should limit myself to STUPID American law limits, if I'm living outside US? If you want to be limited by US law - ive in US and enjoy it. But don't limit other people/countries - they are not part of US justice domain.
this field has been intentionally left blank
And the glass container can be used as a cup-with-a-lid after you have finished it's chocolaty-goodness.
mp3s, although illegal, have exposed me to many artists which i like and have bought their albums, that i would have never had a chance to hear because none of my friends know about them.
some examples:
the who, bob mould, goo goo dolls, 764 hero, the pixies, concrete blonde, superchunk, the breeders, golden smog, seaweed, replacements, dead kennedys...
i could go on, but i've easily bought 50 cds because i downloaded a few of the artists albums, and liked then enough to buy them. if i don't like them, i delete them. it's pretty simple.
often i will later rip these cds to my hard drive to listen to them since is spend far more time with my computers than near my stereo, and i often send the files to friends to introduce them to bands i like. and i can think of at least 10 albums that they have purchased because of this.
i think bands have benefited from mp3 more than they have been hurt.
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
Ya, it's tasty as all hell.
<homer>MMMMM..... nutella</homer>
It's been available in Canada for years, don't know about anywhere else tho. There's probably a jar at your local supermarket... damn, it's good.
-- This sig is.
1. The AOL car would have a TOP speed of 40 MPH yet have a 200 MPH speedometer.
2. The AOL car would come equipped with a NEW and fantastic 8-Track tape player.
3. The car would often refuse to start and owners would just expect this and try again later.
4. The windshield would have an extra dark tint to protect the driver from seeing better cars.
5. AOL would sell the same model car year after year and claim it's the NEW model.
6. Every now and then the brakes on the AOL car would just lock-up for no apparent reason.
7. The AOL car would have a very plain body style but would have lots' of pretty colors and lights.
8. The AOL car would have only one door but it would have 5 extra seats for family members.
9. Anyone dissatisfied could return the car but must continue to make payments for 6 months.
10. If an AOL car owner received 3 parking tickets AOL would take the car off of them.
11. The AOL car would have an AOL Cell phone that can only place calls to other AOL car cell phones.
12. AOL would pass a new car law forbidding AOL car owners from driving near other car dealerships.
13. AOL car mechanics would have no experience in car repair.
14. Younger AOL car drivers would be able to make other peoples AOL cars stall just for fun.
15. It would not be possible to upgrade your AOL car stereo.
16. AOL cars would be forced to use AOL gas that cost 20% more and gave worse mileage.
17. Anytime an AOL car owner saw another AOL car owner he would wonder, M/F/age?
18. It would be common for AOL car owners to divorce just to marry another AOL car owner.
19. AOL car owners would always claim to be older or younger than they really are.
20. AOL cars would come with a steering wheel and AOL would claim no other cars have them.
21. Every time you close the door on the AOL car it would say, good-bye.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
I think it's time that "Gnutella v2.0: the Phoenix" is reborn from the ashes. The download didn't have the source (or did it) so someone who's interested in starting an open source project... here's your chance! Let's do it right this time.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
And how about we all get together and strive to resist ? I think we all have the knowlegde, opportunity, and now the moral obligation to become an awful thorn in their foot.
Maybe we only miss some guts, but every case like this one strikes me with the urge to go to work on day and become an AOL/Micro$oft/Amazon/Whatever cyberkiller at night.
We _can_ be a threat to them, just like they're a threat to us. "Heading for the Moon" is no solution, and I don't want to tell my kids later that I just stood here doing nothing.
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
the topic in #gnutella says that it will go open source at version 1. No expected date for that though, and the ops are quiet this morning.
It's just in proof-of-concept right now. Don't expect perfection.
Synergy is your friend
-Elendale (HEY! Slashdot is being recognized by everyone! Go us!)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Okay ... AOL owns alot of our media ... 24 million people use their online services. How much longer will we accept AOL as a dictator among us? I personally can't stand knowing that the news I watch or the magazines I read will be censored to AOL's standards. The music age, media age, and internet will all be changed because we're going to let it. I believe it's about time to start an AOL boycott ... this is getting out of hand.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I'm sure that many of those who visit Slashdot on a regular basis understand this truism, that piracy puts money into the pockets of corporations. It's just that they don't get it, or understand the economics and want to obfuscate about IP laws.
We all know how Microsoft became a software giant because so many of us geeks back in the early 90s were so eager to put a GUI on the crappy DOS machines in our offices. Many of us had ulterior motives: games, desktop publishing, email, and eventually, web surfing. This huge illegal installed base of Windoze was eventually superceded by each company legally bying site licenses and the like.
On the music side, we all know how illegal taping of records and CDs owned by friends introduced us to music that the corporate stations wouldn't play, because of their top 20 lists, or need to play Foghat for the 3oth time that day. We got into some of those artists who we had taped and eventually BOUGHT their CDs and records when they issued new ones.
Support DIY media! Become the Media!
maknolives
www.infoshop.org
Here's a link to an article in the crimson stating pretty clearly that the school decided not to restrict Napster use: http://www.thecrimson.com/f e atures/article.asp?ref=5567
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
The official napster servers are many, more than 10 and less than 1000... (someone wanna narrow it down?), and are not linked yet... so one central Napster server doesn't describe the structure well.
You're right that napster has many different server and that these servers (unfortunately) aren't yet threaded. However, those are not the "central napster server" I was talking about. What I was talking about comes before that. When you start a Napster connection, your client first connects to one of the two central servers, 208.184.216.222 and 208.184.216.222. These servers contain lists of all of the other servers that you are referring to. Your client is then told by the central server which of the other servers it should connect to (the one with the least number of people currently on it) so that users are evenly distributed, and no one tries to connect to a server that's full. However, if your client can't connect to one of the central servers, it won't be able to connect to anything. This is why schools that block Napster access (luckily, mine has made a statement saying that they won't be one of them) just have to block these two servers.
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Does anyone know under what license gnutella is/was distributed? I couldn't find any. The 'gnu' in gnutella suggests a GPL license, in which case the source code should be made available too. Then the entire community can work on it, with or without AOL employees.
Happy to host it aswell - drop me a line at ian@penguinhosting.net.
Not that this is what happened, but consider this:
/.
Two employees make a product which receives a huge welcoming from the software community. Their employer, pissed at this "suck it you bastards" attitude, pulls the plug. At first, the authors make it look like the site got taken down due to a sheer number of hits. Let's not forget this is site which hosts another program that has tens of millions of downloads in its history. Probably a hard site to
Employer starts reading in the geek press that the program is cool, but no longer available. Employer then leaks to news outlets that program was unauthorized and a rouge effort by two mavericks. Program is canned, end of story.
Geek community goes bonkers trying to get and use the program without any support from parent company. No bandwidth, no support, no nothing. People like the author of this post put it on his home computer and in 18 hours, get 2000 downloads.
Employer waits for dust to clear and hype to boil over. Employer then releases v 1.0, sanitized, sterilized, and commercialized. People again flock to DL this new product.
It's the mentality of "well I can't have it so I want it!" that initially drew me to this. I think there's a lot of people who thought the same thing. So maybe this isn't such a paranoid idea after all.
No sig is worth reading.
"Mirror for program (Score:6, Informative)"
what the fsck? did something slip by me when i wasn't paying attention? i have never seen anything with a score higher than 5 before. i thought it was the limit. so where'd the 6 come from???
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Even if AOL decides to kill it, why does it matter? The concept is good, and the programming itself is not horribly complicated, it would not be difficult for some of us to quit babbling about how bad it is for AOL to be in control of something like this and write something that does the same thing under a more favorable license. -- Disclamer: Opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners of any networks which have been utilized to transmit this message. This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, unfortunately, the owners of large networks tend to subscribe to the 'Cover Your Ass' business philosophy, thus disclamers are required to make them feel warm and fuzzy.
actually, i wonder what aol gains by this.
yes, although it has tried to hinder this project,
the idea's given.
after napster, we had gnapster.
what's going to stop people from copying gnutella's
idea and writing more software like it? anyway, gnutella
was set to be opensource... now if any gnullsoft developer
was to post the sources (beta or whatever) someplace,
some team is going to take it up and continue it's development.
who's going to stop it?
i don't criticize aol for it's decision. it is right in
protecting it's interests. but like they say,
nip it in the bud if you have to... not like this.
Banu
If anyone was lucky enough to actually download gnutella, could you please send a copy to me or tell me where I can find it? I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
Well, it looks like this "open source" project is lost because the authors made a decision not to actually release the source code. They said they would release the code at version 1.0. But that looks like it will never come to pass. The moral is: Always release the source, because you might not have a second chance...
But some states have laws that invalidate such restrictions. I'm not sure if it applies to this situation or not, since I don't know the laws involved.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Don't some states have laws that invalidate some restrictions that companies like to put in their contracts? Isn't AOL located in VA? Does VA have such laws? Would any of those laws apply in this case?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'd love to see something like this work, but how do you get (and keep!) the attention of enough people for a long enough period of time to make a real difference?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What "Wah" probably means is that he's such a hooked up connected scr1pt1ng d00d that he only ever listens to MP3's.
:)
I hope his college sysadmin firewalls his ass out of mp3 land for good
Are there *any* users using these napster clones on thier own payed for network, or are they all on college (or company) systems?
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Transmitting anything except passive data -- that is, using a network like this to download programs, source, or even files you're editing in Emacs -- sounds like a really good way to get the trojan of the week faster than you ever could before..
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
My LORD.... tell you what... next time you make a knee-jerk assumption like that, be looking for a check from a record company.
What do you have to gain by comming in here and saying crap like 'We all know its for pirating.' Sorry to dissapoint you, Mr. Holyer Than Thou... but I actually use it to disperse my friends OWN music that he makes. W/O glorious Napster and even the MP3 phenomenon, he wouldnt have gotten NEARLY the exposure if he had to rely on pressing his own expensive CDs or begging the big multi-billion dollar company that he was worth wasting their time.
And guess what... he doesnt do it for freaking money either. He does it because he likes to do it.
WHY CHARGE PEOPLE TO DOWNLOAD HIS MUSIC WHEN THE INTENT OF THE MUSIC ITSELF IS TO BE FREE!?
This is just an example of why opensourcing this (to me) is a exellent thing.
Thank you, good bye.
And now for a shameless plug for my friend Denizen's band Magic Firesheep, who's been doing this kind of music for about 10 years.
Magic Firesheep - Electronic/Trance
Yes. The moral of the story is:
- if people might try to shut down your web site or block your program, make sure the source code is 'out there'. Making binary-only releases is taking a risk that the whole effort will be wasted, if the lawyers get to you in time.
- ideally, make the code public domain (ie not copyrighted) so that there will not be legal problems with someone else picking up the code, you being forced to try 'revoking' a licence, etc.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
--
I work for a tech company. And when I was hired, part of my emplyment agreement read:
"I hereby agree that all inventions created during the term of my employment (whether or not on the company's premises or using the companies equipment and materials or during regular business hours) shall be a work-for-hire and shall be the sole and exclusive property of the company, and I hereby assign to the company all of my right, title, and interest in any and all such inventions."
I'm not a developer, so this isn't all that restrictive to me, per se. But I would assume that Frankel, et al, signed something pretty similar when they sold off to AOL. It's alot of fun to demonize AOL as being jackbooted thugs, but it seems to me, that they are merely enforcing the terms of a contract that was entered into freely by both parties.
When AOL gave away the bag of cash, for WinAmp, they weren't just buying the existing code, they also hired Justin, and expected further code from him, I'm sure. At this point, I'd say that this was an incredibly reckless thing for him to do, as not only does AOL likely have the authority to close down this project, but it could probably also be used as justification to terminate his employment, and he could be sued for money back that AOL paid for his company even. I sure hope all that doesn't happen, but I wouldn't be too suprised if it did.
Fortunately, if AOL does do something like that, I'm sure that the Slashdot audience will react in a calm, thoughtful way to it.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
It's not a good, but it hasn't "always been free".
We can buy a book that the information is printed on, or a jewel case, liner notes, and cd that the music is recorded on, or a floppy disk that a computer program is written on. We buy and sell the physical media containing the information.
No, you don't. In the case of software, you buy a license, which clearly costs more than the price of duplicating media. The payment is primarily to compensate the author. It seems only fair that the author, as well as the distributors, should be compensated.
information is priceless
The copyright system allows us to put a price on information -- the price is simply whatever the market is willing to pay. Moreover, someone can create information by spending (X) amount of capital. So it is clearly not priceless. You also assert that the only thing information is worth is more information. Well that's a nice theory, but there's an immediate consequence, and that is that creators of intellectual works should only be compensated in "information", and that they should forgo all material things, because their productivity has no material worth.
A fisherman and a trapper ...
What if the person who wants to use your information can not offer you information in return ? What if someone would rather pay for the information than offer some ? The reason why we abandoned the barter system is because a long time back, we worked out that we needed a common medium to trade with.
You say yourself that information isn't free of cost. So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system ?
IMO, when you argue by analogy, you concede. An argument that requires an analogy is simply wrong. Moreover, an analogy does not constitute any kind of proof. For example, when I say "A group is like a ring, so the isomorphism theorems for rings are true for groups", I've explained how one could prove a theorem, but this hand wave should certainly not be mistaken for a proof.
"Sure, you can try to rationalise it by saying "the big evil corporations are exploiting poor third world countries". If you really mean this, go give to charity or something"
Even though I consider using an analogy itself an admission that you have no point, I will explain why I think your analogy is not applicable. My point is that the main reason people hold these opinions is expediency -- as some kind of retrospective rationalisation of unethical behaviour.
Now I'd certainly agree that corporations should face up to their responsibility. However, I'd be sceptical of any protests against a corporation that seemed to be driven by expediency ( an example would be an anti-CocaCola movement who were primarily funded by pepsi and lead by people on Pepsi's payroll )
Perhaps. But you still haven't proven't that someone is actually HURT by privacy. THAT should be your argument.
What, you don't think no one is hurt by loss of sales ? I think it's self evident that widespread piracy will undermine any chance of selling anything. This is certainly the case in instances where copyright laws don't work ( for example, selling software in Japan is impossible, and selling typefaces in the US is equally imossible )
Secondly, I know a GPL program can be distributed anywhere. Unlike a lot of the slashdot leech kiddies, I've actually contributed free documentation and code, and I do not have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to redistribute my free documentation and code ... that is, as long as they abide by the terms of the (free) license. What does bother me, however, is when users abuse this "sharing" software and don't abide by the terms of their licenses, whether that license be the GPL, or a proprietary license.
WRONG. Just look at the slashdot kiddies getting up in arms, when someone recently violated the GPL ( John Carmack was the copyright holder ). In this instance, the guy was not selling it. To put it bluntly, It's free speech, not free beer. Imagine someone violates the GPL by not distributing the source code, and then they make the software require some key to use it. This is a clear exploitation and affront to the GPL that could take place in the absence of copyrights.
[ snip : Copyrights and patents ]
Copyrights and patents are not the same thing, if you're too ignorant to know the difference, don't bother debating the topic. I was NOT talking about patents, so you are either building straw men, or you are just ignorant.
I can't tell you what the solution is,
It's funny, that. The people who advocate vandalism of the copyright system don't have any solutions. To hell with solutions, as long as you can freeload, right ?
100 years from now we will laugh at how silly we were to make the first infinite resource artificially
Intellectual labor is not an "infinite resource". It costs nothing (or say epsilon) to distribute, but actually production cost is quite high. Since the production costs are incurred prior to sale, it's necessary to find some kind of distributed payment system ( since no individual customer can afford to hire the developer ). Copyrights address this issue quite well. I have doubts that any GOOD alternatives exist. The problem is this -- how do you construct a payment scheme that enables users to share costs ? And IMO, copyrights are the best answer.
Try not to get caught in the rubble
Are you trying to imply I have financial interests here ? FYI, I work for a University, and plan to for some time. I don't have financial interests, I am just put off by all the freeloaders.
If it really is in the artists interests to offer their music under some kind of shareware / demoware scheme, they will do this. However, it's certainly not for you to decide what is and what isn't good for the artist. Sharing is fine, but sharing should be voluntary.
Great. You're a professional musician, and you don't want to share it with everyone, so you don't record digitally. Who pays your bills now ? Are you trying to argue that musicians shouldn't be paid for writing and recording music ?
And why should digital recording mandate sharing ?
The real problem that copyrights try to solve is this -- given software package (*), none of the users can afford to pay for the developers time. So there needs to be a way of sharing the costs. The way copyrights work is this -- developer (X) licenses software to uses. Developer (X)'s prices are constrained by competition from developers (Y) and (Z). The main thing that copyright laws do is attempt to stop people freeloading, ie everyone who uses the software is supposed to share the costs.
by applying them
Well frankly, even your supporters are lost on the meaning of this one.
You can "negotiate different terms" by taking your business to a different vendor. However, if all the vendors are using draconian terms, then it's a sign the vendors have too much power ( IMO, software vendors should be held to the same level of accountability as vendors of tangible goods )
I believe we should respect the author's liscensing terms - by that I mean, if it's a restrictive, lawyer-trash liscense, don't use it.
That sounds fair enough. BTW, does the GPL count (-; (I'm going to have to get Berkeley DB, because I can't link against GDBM )
The system we have has major and obvious flaws, but at least it rewards artists. Well, what if we all become artists?
I don't get your point. I don't think "we'll all become artists" any time soon.
Remember the Slashdot Beanie 2000 awards?
Yep. I wrote a HOWTO, some miscellaneous perl bits and pieces and contributed to vim ( an award winning project ). So -- where's my money ? This system is a nice way of rewarding and recognising volunteers, but can you honestly say that anyone would write free software for the money ?
We will need a new system.
Well, tell us when you have it.
I'm a Libertarian, myself, so I trust in the free market to give us a solution.
Well if the free market can give us a solution that's more efficient, then it will produce such a solution whether the copyright system is there or not. IMO, we won't find a better system.
It's efficient in that the copyright model has been the only commercial viable model under which software has been developed and sold. I've yet to see another distribution model for software that is profitable for the developers as well as offering reasonable prices to consumers. Not really true because of current copyright law no other reason. Watch. I'm taking an MP3, copying it, again, again, again, again, and dangit it just keeps making the same thing. How is this not really true?
Fine. You just keep copying those MP3s. But remember this -- copying MP3s does not get new songs written. Songs will not get written unless the artist has the means to achieve compensation. Copying is not productive creative activity, and compared to the cost/effort/skill required to create the work, copying is something a monkey could do.
But it's not worth anything at all until there is a demand. So record companies spend a great deal of money creating demand.
There is demand whether or not the record companies create it. Simply put, the public are prepared to pay to have those songs written. If they weren't prepared to pay, they obviously wouldn't be buying. So the question is not if the public are prepared to pay, but how should the costs be shared. The copyright system (usually) has everyone who owns a copy of the media paying an equal amount.
The artist does not by default offer a valuable service.
I disagree. Millions of dollars also disagrees with you. The public are prepared to pay for the artists services. As I've already said, the long term way to get the big companies out of the picture is have the artists set up their own smaller distribution networks.
It just so happens that the music distrubution cost-of-entry barrier has been totally removed, and the only way to re-create it is with a police line.
I have no objection to a low cost of entry. I only have objections to freeloading. When you say it's OK to freeload, you remove incentive to compensate the artist.
As you and I have agreed on, the distribution costs are in fact minimal.
On one side we have big companies using massive forces to create artificial scarcity,
Like I said, the point of the so-called "artificial scarcity" is to provide an efficient means of cost-sharing. This is not just a "greedy megacopr" thing, it is about the right of the artist to be compensated for their creative work.
and the other we have talented artists getting massive, free, personal distrubution.
Well that's all well and good, but let the artist choose free distribution. No one has the right to force anyone else to share.
Now unless you think that having 2,000,000 people singing your song and knowing your name is not a position from which you can recieve recompense,
Whether or not it'd be a good position depends on the means by which you can recompense.
And, because they have the copyright, anyone who tries to *profit* from their work should be prosecuted,
Yes, but if you remove the laws that make the music industry profitable, that doesn't help much.
go read the DMCA or UCITA to get a feel for this
These cases are an example of the big corporations simply getting greedy. They are about protecting big companies. And making life harder for the little guy. But this in itself does not serve as evidence that we need to dispose of copyrights.
This open model makes more sense to me,
I can see why it makes sense for you -- it's a model under which you can get something for nothing, and circumvent your obligation to compensate the artist.
seeing as how the products value in supply and demand terms is 0
Again, not really true. The product is the song itself, not electronic or physical copies of the song.
The artist is fully equipped and protected to use this goodwill to profit in any way possible, endorsements, selling cds, live shows.
Yes, but apparently, you are saying that they shouldn't be payed to write and record the music. I consider this position absurd, because I believe that simply by producing the piece of music, the artist has already performed a valuable service, and is entitled to collect compensation ( the amount to be determined by the market ) without recourse to sideline activities.
It's all well to say that they can make money doing something else, but this totally ignores the fact that what they have already done is worthy of compensation.
My point is that if you really believe in compensating the artist, then you should do so, for example, by using typefaces you paid for instead of the usual knockoffs.
I didn't realise you were advocating holding corporations accountable. I don't see how advocating large scale piracy and the dismantling of copyright helps to hold corporations to their duty to compensate the artist. As I've said before, the best way to get artists compensated is have them do their own distribution so that they won't be dependent on corporations. This will inevitably happen, it's only a matter of time.
Wait a few minutes. Do you realize piracy and loss of sales are not equivalent?
Not quite equivalent. I'd say piracy implies loss of sales beyond a certain point. Without copyright protection, sales will definitely be lost, because there is an economic disincentive to pay ( namely that you are not legally required to, and you loose money if you do ). Sure, the "piracy costs (X) figures" are inflated. However, it seems clear enough that in places like Japan, where the population has the money to purchase software, and the piracy rate is high, that real money is being lost. It is also interesting to note that the software industry is strongest in the pplaces that do have effective copyright protection. ( An interesting example: the US produce good software but most of the typeographers are in Europe. the US have good copyright protection on software, but not on typefaces )
Are they so naive to assume that each and every person who obtained a pirated product would have actually BOUGHT the product if a pirated version were not available?
No, I'm not. I am not assuming that everyone who pirates would have purchased a license. Let's turn that around -- are you saying that all of the people who pirate would not have purchased a license ? Now suppose you remove copyright altogether. Then noone will pay for software. However, it seems self evident that some of those would have if they were required to.
... and that's exactly why Gnutella would be a good idea to replace napster. open source, open protocol, open extensions to all kinds of filetypes, not just mp3. if you're going to condemn this because it makes copyright violations easier, you might as well shutdown the whole web for the same reason.
Who cares, I know of AT LEAST two napster clones for GNOME. Look on freshmeat.net.
Well, it looks like this "open source" project is lost because the authors made a decision not to actually release the source code.
There's nothing the open-source model does better than cloning software... especially cool software that's fun to use and fun to distribute. So don't moan any more - fire up your egcs and get to work. Shouldn't take too long for 3-4 guys to hack together a serviceable clone. The point is - now they've shown us what's good about the approach - that's the hard part. It's done. Just do it again.
Ever lost a bunch of code you were working on (by overwriting a file or something) and get that really depressing "I just can't write that all over again" feeling? Well, and of course you did write it again, didn't you? And it took only 20% of the time to write it the second time, and you made a bunch of improvements on the way, didn't you? Well it's like that. The only hard part is getting started.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
"Napster is currently being sued for billions of dollars by the Recording Industry Association of America, which complains that the software enables music piracy. AOL -- which is in the process of acquiring Time Warner, which in turn owns the record label Warner Music, which in turn is a charter member of the Recording Industry Association of America -- could hardly be pleased that one of its own was producing a similar software program. No wonder those roguish programmers kept Gnutella hidden from their corporate managers."
This is what bothers me about the Salon article. They draw a conclusion that the only reason to not openly develop a program to version 0.48 is to HIDE it. Geesh. I'm fairly certain the author has NO clue as to what is going on and allready he/she/it is accusing those who wrote gnutella of undermining AOL. Is it possible to think that writing great tools for finding stuff on this GIANT network would possibly be a boon to AOL? I think it is.
Just my $0.02, trash as you see fit.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
If anyone's interested, I will be putting up a mirror sometime this weekend. E-mail me for more information (just remove the TINLC part...there is no lumber cartel. :)
My journal has hot
The only reason the GPL exists is to protect itself from copyright law itself. If there were no copyright law, the GPL wouldn't be needed. If somebody "steals" your GPL'd "product" and "sells" it, they can only stop you from undercutting them by pasting their own copyright on it.
In any case you are missing the point. Moving information around is inevitably going to be easier and easier. It has nothing to do with morality, or "natural" law, or any other mindless human construct. The fact of the matter is, up until recently, information could be treated like a limited resource. Copyrights and patents and other IP law were only a stop gap measure.
The world is collapsing around you, and all you can bleat about is "pirates" (yes, they pillage and rape "your" precious ideas - sometimes for profit, and only because copyrights allow them to) and the failure of your precious intellectual property law kludges.
Copyrights and patents are a government enforced monopoly, and anybody who claims they are part of a functioning free market is selling you something.
Wake up, smell the coffee, and adjust. 100 years from now we will laugh at how silly we were to make the first infinite resource artificially limited simply to make it fit with our delusional concept of a durable consumable goods market.
I can't tell you what the solution is, but the current structure is about to collapse under its own weight. Try not to get caught in the rubble. Work for a company that produces real goods and services and hires people to work on internal projects. Work for McDonalds. I don't care. But rest assured something has got to give, and retail software as we know it is inevitably doomed.
"deeply criminal purpose"??? Even if Napster and Gnutella are only for the bad guys, I find it laughable that you would call a bunch of kids trading music files "deeply criminal."
You state that these products "deprive artists of...revenue." This is only true if mp3s affect people's buing habbits. While I don't doubt that there are people who will never buy CD's again, I can pretty honestly say that mp3's have not changed my buying habbits; and perhaps have even convinced me to buy CD's from artists that I would never have heard of before.
It's SUCH a basic American concept: don't take away freedoms that COULD be abused, stop only the abuses. Napster is not illegal, nor should it be.
Mike
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Put it up to SourceForge and lets get a project started.
What I don't understand is why people are so intent on parading Napster around as something it's clearly not.
To combat the RIAA who are so intent on parading MP3 around as something it's not. It's a PR/marketing/perception battle at this point. See what happens in a political campaign when one candidate goes the total honest route and the other does politics as normal. In our imperfect world, I can you who will win 95% of the time. The RIAA has billions of dollars, friends with TV networks, radio, and AOL. We have lots of passionate people all with a little time to spare, some bandwidth, and this lil' techy toy called the Internet.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
The copyright system allows us to put a price on information -- the price is simply whatever the market is willing to pay.
you are familar with the concept of supply and demand right? As a way to determine value, eh? When supply is infinite, the price is.....?
But wait, we have a new force involved. Law. So instead of working through a natural way to determine value, we back it up with a government. So yes, copyrighted digital works do have inherent value, but it's only as much as the enforcement is willing to make them worth. Are you following me here? When you use an unnatual system to determine price, it becomes more and more difficult to support that price, esp. when the natural price should be very close to zero. And even more difficult when the peasants realize it.
So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system ?
By applying them. (note: this is not to say the copyright idea should be nixed, just a reply to a hypothetical)
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
k, bitch.
It sure would be tough for a college sysadmin to cut off my connection, since I pay $100/month for my own DSL line, in my apartment, which runs my server, over my router, through my firewall. So unless you can convice USWest that I'm sending bad packets, or get a court order, fuck right off. (note: this is not a Hackme contest, pleeeease..)
If you want to listen to an increasing number of commercials (because there is no competition in radio, or network TV and both have been ramping up advertising "units" consistently for years) with an increasingly limited breadth of choices go for it. More power to you. I pay for my connection so I can make own choices, it's fun, empowering, and I wish everyone would do it too. And as soon as I get the time to hack Icecast to my liking, I'll have my OWN radio station.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
Like I said, the point of the so-called "artificial scarcity" is to provide an efficient means of cost-sharing.
I don't see the efficiency, all "artificial scarcity" does is provide a way for one entity to control supply, unless you think high price = efficient, if which case the current system is quite efficient.
Well that's all well and good, but let the artist choose free distribution. No one has the right to force anyone else to share.
Yes, let them. Or they can try and fight it with lawyers. What I'm saying is that this situation already exists, to try and fight it is great, buy why do you want to? Oh yeah, control. The owners of the copyright (most likely not the artist) wants to create a market where they can get the most value on a per-unit basis, and then exploit that position. I don't want to support that model, now that I don't need it and the Internet has made it obsolete.
Yes, but if you remove the laws that make the music industry profitable, that doesn't help much.
The recording industry will still be profitable, people will still buy music, I still buy music. Why do you think music buying will stop? It hasn't for me. In fact it's gone up, because now, with a wide open competitive landscape, I can find the music I like, and listen to it enough until I really like it.
These cases are an example of the big corporations simply getting greedy. They are about protecting big companies. And making life harder for the little guy.
*cough* *Cough* *COUGH*
can see why it makes sense for you -- it's a model under which you can get something for nothing, and circumvent your obligation to compensate the artist.
So my paying for bandwidth, diskspace, time, and effort to promote an artist are of no value in your world? In mine they're roughly equivelent to the value of an infinite product. I know you don't think I should have that choice, but I do, until you get the vast Internet security mechanisms in place to stop it, or put enough digital pirates in jails for felonies to scare me aware, I'll still have that choice. Is that the culture you want?
Again, not really true. The product is the song itself, not electronic or physical copies of the song.
Not really true because of current copyright law no other reason. Watch. I'm taking an MP3, copying it, again, again, again, again, and dangit it just keeps making the same thing. How is this not really true?
I consider this position absurd, because I believe that simply by producing the piece of music, the artist has already performed a valuable service, and is entitled to collect compensation ( the amount to be determined by the market ) without recourse to sideline activities.
But it's not worth anything at all until there is a demand. So record companies spend a great deal of money creating demand. What I'm saying is that demand can be created by people on their own, word-of-napster, using their personally bought and paid for resources. The artist does not by default offer a valuable service. Go sit on a street corner and see how valuable being able to sing and play a guitar is. It's only be creating demand that they have any hope to make money. Currently this entire process is influenced to a frightening degree by the people who own the music, via big movie deals, radio-play, commercials, etc. (Mambo #5 which I heard on a Fox commercial before I heard the real song, waahoo artistic integrity at its finest), rather than those to listen to it. It's also very expensive, and so they *must* keep the music that way to support their model.
It just so happens that the music distrubution cost-of-entry barrier has been totally removed, and the only way to re-create it is with a police line. So you can keep up the fight for an artistic profit center if you want, I'll just fight for good art.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
The main thing that copyright laws do is attempt to stop people freeloading, ie everyone who uses the software is supposed to share the costs.
Exactly, that's why I pay for bandwidth and diskspace. It's my part of the cost in distrubuting and reproducing the music. That's why I don't think I should be forced to pay those costs again.
And perhaps this is where my personal philosophy parts ways with others. I think art should be appreciated. We came up with the copyright system as a way to make sure artists could have their work protected. Fine, they need a way to say "Hey that's mine." and establish some type of ownership. I also think they should be the only ones to profit from such works. However, given the nature of the beast (the 'Net and all it can do) *everyone* can have a copy at no *cost* to the copyright owner. So we have a dilly of a pickle, and a fork in the road ahead of us.
On the one side, we have a culture where 100,000 lawyers continue suing everyone is sight, hoping
to control the uncontrollable, and on the other we have really great artists getting massive exposure because a whole lot of people (not just the radio stations they lobby or take to Bermuda) think they make great music. On one side we have big companies using massive forces to create artificial scarcity, and the other we have talented artists getting massive, free, personal distrubution. Now unless you think that having 2,000,000 people singing your song and knowing your name is not a position from which you can recieve recompense, the copyright owner will be compensated to a degree that they can continue to make good music. And, because they have the copyright, anyone who tries to *profit* from their work should be prosecuted, and the artist has the full force of an already bloated goverment behind them. Play fair, everyone's happy, don't and you'll regret it. I just think "fair" has gotten madly obscured (go read the DMCA or UCITA to get a feel for this) by those in a position to change the only thing that gives thier product any value protection at all, the law.
This open model makes more sense to me, creating (and subsidizing) massive false scarcity in an effort to control the spread of art for profit doesn't.
--
by applying them
to control, the original purpose of copyright, who gets to profit in $ (the stuff you need to live) from the protected work. Not who gets to use it. Which are now two completely separate things (seeing as how the products value in supply and demand terms is 0 and I am already paying for the minuscule reproduction and tramsmission costs). The artist is fully equipped and protected to use this goodwill to profit in any way possible, endorsements, selling cds, live shows. etc. (here's a post with more suggestions)
So that's what I think.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
yes, the rules were relaxed quite a bit with deregualation. The rules now are based on a percentage of total revenue in a market, as well as a hard cap of 8 media outlets per market. That can now be 8 radio station, or any combo or radio and TV, with the upper limit of TV being 2.
Clear Channel Communications (the number 1 in total ownership) recently bought AMFM (who used to be Chancellor) who was the #3 owner at the time. The #2 is CBS/Infinity. I think CC owns in the neighborhood of 800 stations and CBS is around 600.
Massive cuts in programming are now practical as one DJ can run any number of stations. Playlists are also *roughly* standardized across highly departmentalized genres. By limiting playlists and cranking up repetition, they have made record companies very happy. The number of units sold per hour (minutes of commercials) has also steadily risen since deregualation, this is also true for television. Radio has about 15 units/hr and TV (at least the major networks) are pushing 18.
hmmm, this is a few days late, no one will ever read it. Hi Mom!
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
I guess the folks at AOL have never heard of Pandora's Box, Huh?
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Clearly users must take some responsibility here for pira^H^H^H^H sharing illegal media. Hell, I use Napster all the time. But I acknowledge the fact that I'm doing it, and recognize that this is the sole purpose of Napster; A distributed kernel network would, of course, not have this issue. I don't want to get rid of Napster, but I do want to see people admit that it's tool with really only one use. Granted it could be used for legal sharing, but the overwhelming truth is that it isn't.
That's all I want -- to stop hearing people say that Napster is squeaky-clean just because it has the capacity to be used properly. Obviously this isn't something that is actually happening. So who's the bad guy here? Are we going to say "Hey, AOL is bad bad company because they wouldn't let those Nullsoft hackers further the proliferation of illegal music!"
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I think it's clear by now that anybody can get moderated up just by saying something that *sounds* good; If a post has a good vibe to it, it will be bumped up. Don't get me wrong -- I agreed with your point above, but I try not to take moderation seriously, and I always browse at -1.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I've spent quite a bit of time on and off college campuses in the last year and every single person I know, within the ages of 17 and 30, has some sort of Napster client on their PC. All of them. That's probably not a suprise to anyone though, since we all agree that Napster is incredibly popular.
All these people that I just mentioned? They're using Napster to illegally download pirated songs, rather than purchase the CDs themselves. Is that a suprise? OF COURSE NOT! Hey, if you're the one person out there whose never used Napster to download a pirated song, then I profusely apologize. Since I would bet money that you aren't, I don't plan on making any apologies.
Bottom line? Napster can have a use as a generic file transfer agent, but it doesn't. It's a tool built with the intention and purpose of sharing pirated music -- I love Napster, I use it everyday. But I don't lie to myself and others, trying to convince them that Napster is something that it's not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Of course not! Napster is not "general purpose". Napster only shares MP3 files. Granted, not all MP3s are pirated media, but nearly 100% of the MP3s on Napster are. What I don't understand is why people are so intent on parading Napster around as something it's clearly not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
grab 0.48 at http://derf.dhs.org/~derf/gnutella/
CrayDrygu wrote: "My immediate reaction, which I see someone else has also posted, was "What right does AOL have to say what Frankel can and can't work on in his off time?" Well, I don't know what kind of deal he signed with AOL, but there may very well be some sort of clause in there restricting this sort of thing."
Unless Frankel got AOL to agree to a non-restrictive employment agreement when he was hired, probably every right.
AOL, love it or hate it (with the choice among these being pretty easy), is a company with it's own goals, even if they're often short-sighted or constrictive. Programmers, to their credit, can and often do circumvent the officialdom of their workplaces to create new / better / fun software, and we all benefit. But it doesn't change AOL's right as contractural proprietor of software, or their right as a Web host to carry / deny any content they want.
Sometimes businesses just act like they were run by Mr. Burns and Dilbert's boss. Think *super* long term, and this could turn out to be mark an inflection point in public opinion about AOL. They've just created some bad blood for themselves on one front (Free software folks / anyone who wants to use Gnutella) while racking up points on another (Warner, RIAA).
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Well, there is absolutely no reason why those artists can't post their music as shareware; but that shareware will have to be done on the honor system. Some software companies do well with this kind of system (take a look at ambrosiasoftware.com).
Enhanced ID3 tags which contained information on how to contact an artist to pay a shareware fee might be a good idea...
The point is that the old business models are going away; there is no way to make money by restricting the flow of information: information itself will no longer be a "good." to be bought or sold.
Shareware fees would simply be a way of helping to support the production of the information that you like to get, much in the same way that one donates to the salvation army, or pay a tip.
=)
OOoohh...I like that, Tipping the musician for a good song I got online! Like a worldwide open mike night!
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Not, say, if he developed it with some friends on the weekend. Can they prove he didn't? If he didn't develop it on the job, they can't touch him.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"Sure, you can try to rationalise it by saying "the big evil corporations get all the money and the artist doesn't get any". If you really mean this, go buy some shareware fonts or something --"
/their/ responsibility also.
This statement is analogous to:
"Sure, you can try to rationalise it by saying "the big evil corporations are exploiting poor third world countries". If you really mean this, go give to charity or something"
...as a means of avoiding redress of big corporations. Yes, I will give to charity, but I will also demand big evil corporations to own up to
"there are means of distribution that enable the artist to get compensation without a middleman intercepting all of the profits."
Yes. One means is MP3, which the big media corporations would brainwash you into thinking is inherently bad and should be universally banned.
"However, piracy is not one of them. The only people who benefit from piracy are the cheapskates who do the illegal copying."
Perhaps. But you still haven't proven't that someone is actually HURT by privacy. THAT should be your argument.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"My point is that if you really believe in compensating the artist, then you should do so, for example, by using typefaces you paid for instead of the usual knockoffs."
/I/ compensate artists, but the corporations who exploit them to an extent much greater than I possibly could, should /also/ compensate them fairly.
/also/ don't advocate corporations using their financial power and a dysfunctional legal system to bully and extinguish emerging markets, and infringing on peoples' [pre-established] freedoms in order to retain their de facto money making monopoly. Would we both agree that if ALL artists used a direct medium like MP3 they would be much better compensated?
/most/ piracy, is done by people who either A) can't afford the software, or B) wouldn't buy it anyway, regardless of whether there was a pirated version.
That is a point I also agree on, but doesn't address the issue. Not only should
"I didn't realise you were advocating holding corporations accountable. I don't see how advocating large scale piracy and the dismantling of copyright helps to hold corporations to their duty to compensate the artist."
I don't advocate piracy. But I
"As I've said before, the best way to get artists compensated is have them do their own distribution so that they won't be dependent on corporations. This will inevitably happen, it's only a matter of time."
No, not if the corporations who see MP3 as a threat manage to stick the "MP3==EVIL" meme in peoples' heads and use their power to outlaw it.
"However, it seems clear enough that in places like Japan, where the population has the money to purchase software, and the piracy rate is high, that real money is being lost."
Yes, that may be the case. But I'd wager a guess that a lot, if not
"No, I'm not. I am not assuming that everyone who pirates would have purchased a license. Let's turn that around -- are you saying that all of the people who pirate would not have purchased a license?"
No, but I'm saying many would not. Ask around here on Slashdot and find out how many people have actually bought CDs BECAUSE of mp3 and how many people explicitly DIDN'T buy a CD BECAUSE they could obtain the MP3s (different from "wouldn't buy the CD at all, but MP3s are nice freebies").
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Of course I don't work for NullSoft, haven't written an insanely popular media player, or own Audies, but if I were Justin I would walk straight out of there (if I legally could). Pick up my sh*t and say, "well, it's been nice knowing you, G'DAY". Nullsoft/GNullSoft/Justin&Co. can go so far. They are really talented. They don't need to take this. Winamp was written to scratch an itch...if AOL won't let them scratch their itches, it is just not worth it.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"IMO, when you argue by analogy, you concede."
If you say so. I have just seen way too many arguments that go like this:
"Y is bad"
"Hey, if Y is so bad why don't you do "
Your statement is an example of such an argument:
""...the big evil corporations get all the money and the artist doesn't get any". If you really mean this, go buy some shareware fonts or something --"
HOW does MY buying shareware fonts, however a good action it is and however little it will help, cause corporations to own up to their responsibility? My action of buying shareware fonts does not address that fact that corporations themselves are not doing the same. Another analogies, since you like them so much:
"Evil corporations pollute so much"
"Hey, why don't YOU stop littering?!"
or
"Country X is so racist!"
"Hey, your country is also racist!"
I believe this is a variant of an ad hominem attack...it is just shifting the focus of the argument.
Me: "Perhaps. But you still haven't proven't that someone is actually HURT by privacy. THAT should be your argument."
"What, you don't think no one is hurt by loss of sales ?"
Wait a few minutes. Do you realize piracy and loss of sales are not equivalent? You are assuming they are equivalent. I call that. Prove it to me. This is another error of omission the big companies spread about. "X billion dollars of pirated product was sold!" Well, how much of that money would they really have seen? Are they so naive to assume that each and every person who obtained a pirated product would have actually BOUGHT the product if a pirated version were not available?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, so much for AOL being the kindly parent who was going to let its children go their own way. So much for the vision of the AOL-Netscape combination being a challanger to Microsoft. AOL is just another Microsoft now.
If I were Justin I'd be mad pissed...I'd walk out. If you're out there Justin, I, and probably many others, will pay good money for your products (open source or not)...I've freeloaded enough...I guess this is what I get.
Damn AOL bastards.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
--
http://www.aikiweb.com - AikiWeb Aikido Information
Also gnapster is my favorite client, list of a lot more if you query freshmeat for napster, and on the server side there's Opennap
...rather than the one central Napster server
The official napster servers are many, more than 10 and less than 1000... (someone wanna narrow it down?), and are not linked yet... so one central Napster server doesn't describe the structure well.
--
linuxisgood:~$ man woman
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
I have been using Gnutella for a few days now, and have to say that its a great product, unlike anything before it. People, please stop bitching about other Napster clones -- its really not comparable to Napster. After I started using Gnutella, I, like a good netcitizen tried to post on slashdot, which was of course a useless gesture, but I still tried. Now I'm quite glad I didn't make it. From what I can tell, the massive force behind slashdot basically caused the crumble of Gnutella. Why I think so:
./ arcticle, the Gnullsoft server was doing fine -- then goes down in what Tom (member of (G)Nullsoft) described as from slashdotting.
Before the article the gnut network was floating at about 80 hosts mark -- now its around 220. In the hours proceeding the
That being said, I know that sooner or later it would've probably gone down eventually, but slash certainly helped speed it up -- slash post, then Salon, Wired, C|net and any other online publisher jump it... now AOL is aware. Which may or may not have caused this more looming downtime. But maybe if Tom and Justin were given a little more time they could've talked to AOL more about their offshoot... now probably a pointless gesture, AOL on a whole doesn't seem to like being nipped in the butt.
On other random tangents, I'll have to say the Gnutella was the first article to make me lose faith in the quality of slashdot. Hemos's opener was insulting, implying that the Nullsoft people had some agenda because they have been bought out. I'm as much against corperate mergers as the next guy, but when their are still independent positive movements coming out of one (Netscape, Nullsoft), at least support them. Stop the paranoia please. Also, the posts on slashdot from both of these articles have been rather disgraceful... the mod'ed up items have been either pastings of text from the old Gnullsoft site, or on this article file mirrors. Stupid.
They never released the source. Despite the "gnu" in the name, the beta version was Win32 binary-only. (They were planning on porting to Mac/Linux/etc. and GPLing once they got to 1.0)
Of course, there are numerous open-source napster clones already out there, so it isn't such a huge loss.
A european hazelnut/choclate spread like peanut butter. I get mine from German relatives.. its great on toast and in cookies like peanut butter cookies. It tends to be a little greasier so you need to make the dough drier or the cookies will spread when you bake em.
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Justin used to put cool rants up there all the time, along with information about his progress adding features to and debugging Winamp.
--
The shareholder is always right.
People who run mirros deserve a little extra credit on occasion
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I've got a copy of it, and I've been using it regularly. It's much smaller and neater than the real napster.
If anyone has a place to post it, I've got a copy.
scratch that, they're back up and running again.
It won't do you any good to have the file. The servers that it connects to are down, and it won't connect to any of the regular napster servers anyway. I tried using a whole bunch of servers listed in napigator with no luck.
Will someone please put up a server on port 1080? We have a firewall at work and it'd be nice to circumvent it.
I could go for a couple gigabytes of avi movies showing Billy taking it up the ass from the Federal Gov't.
Seems like almost any file could be publically traded not specifically mp3s. For example source code, recipes, or perhaps fan fiction. You are really being short sighted.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Yet another move by AOL in its own best interest, and screw everyone elses'. Of course, most corporations nowadays do the same thing, but AOL seems to be trying to create a world monopoly on all goods. The hell is going on? Everyone's so worried about M$, they forget Amazon & AOL. Maybe it's time to create a new internet where Open Source can thrive, as well as projects like Gnutella, Napster and DeCSS. Well, maybe that's not such a good idea - it wouldn't be long before corporations started moving in on that too.
So, AOL shuts down Gnutella because it could conflict with their future interests in the music world, MPAA shuts down DeCSS for the same reason, what's next? Amazon shutting down libraries because Amazon sells books and libraries rent them out???
Shit, we obviously need to do something before the Net is completely overrun by pointy-haired corporations sucking every penny they can out of the Internet and consumers. Not that I know what. Open letters are pretty much useless, as we saw with the MCSEs' yesterday, marches don't seem to do anything but clog up streets and tire out the marchers, boycotts don't work because not enough people know/care about them (Amazon), voting isn't effective enough because not enough people vote/care and there's this thing called the Electoral College, so what's left? How about we all get together, build a space shuttle, and head for the Moon?
Eruantalon
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
"The point is that the old business models are going away; there is no way to make money by restricting the flow of information: information itself will no longer be a "good." to be bought or sold."
I agree with you fully except for one point - information has never been a good to be bought or sold, it has always been free. We can buy a book that the information is printed on, or a jewel case, liner notes, and cd that the music is recorded on, or a floppy disk that a computer program is written on. We buy and sell the physical media containing the information.
With the rise of widespread networks, we no longer need jewel cases, cds, floppy disks, and soon books to carry information - they are obsolete, as are the companies that have made their living off of information distribution. Now, the unethical of those companies are going to try to fool people into paying for something that's free - they will tell us that information can be payed for with money.
It cannot. Information is worthless and priceless - money cannot buy it. The only thing information is worth is more information.
A fisherman and a trapper in the mountains meet. They teach each other what they know. Then they part, both having gained something that might save their lives, or might be entirely useless.
Information isn't free of cost. It costs work, creativity, memory, bandwidth. Distribution costs money. Physical media costs money. Information doesn't.
Does anyone else think that the merging of AOL and Time Warner is going to cause more and more conflicts and rivalries like what has just occured?
Ater all, Time Warner music is a major player in the music industry and is vociferously (sp?) against Napster and here's another part of the company creating software that not only competes with Napster but seems to be better designed and more usable. The irony is so delicious. I can't wait to see how this develops.
I agree. If you want to see who's depriving artists of revenue, take a look at the record companies. The lucky ones who have had good legal representation might get as much as $0.10 per CD sold. Now, with the current price of a popular CD hovering around $17 or so, who do you think gets the rest of that money?
That's right...members of the RIAA. The only reason they're upset about Napster and Gnutella, etc. is that they don't like the idea of anybody else exploiting artists. It's kind of like, "I'll beat my kids all I want, but if you lay a finger on them, I'll kill you!"
It's that kind of crap that made me get out of the music business. (Well, that and an incurable addiction to eating on a regular basis)
Even generaly liberal contracts contain SOME protection clauses for the company. I can do all the side work I want, and I own anyting I write, but if it creates a "Conflict of interest " with the company, they have right to tell me to stop. AOL could argue fairly easilly that this creates such a conflict. I would not agree, but the arguement could be made.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
The Open Source community should just start a new project to develop a non-blockable Nabster clone.
Well, there already is an open-source Napster clone, gnap. However, it is designed to be like Napster, thus it is not unblockable (although it might be more so because there could be lots of people running servers, rather than the one central Napster server). Thus, it does seem like a good idea to have an open source Gnutella-style program. But, before we build one from scratch, what kind of license does Gnutella use? If it's anything like the GPL, it would be silly to create a new one from scratch. Even if AOL decides to stop Nullsoft from working on Gnutella, it doesn't matter because the open source community can take its code and extend it.
So, has anyone read the Gnutella license? If so, please explain how much freedom it gives others to modify and redistribute the code. Thanks.
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but... I can remember, a long time ago (and seemingly in a galaxy far, far away) recording songs as they were played on the radio, compiling tapes of "popular" or just plain "cool" tunes, and distributing them to my friends and family. I obtained the music in a legal manner, since it was broadcast over the public airwaves, and gave the compilations away for free to my friends and family. We often traded these compilation tapes. Since nobody seems to be charging anything for the MP3s available on each others' computers, how is this different? Is it really "illegal?" You can, after all, still record songs off the airwaves and distribute tapes (or CDs) to your friends and family, probably easier now than when I did it. I guess my point is, that since the capability to distribute free music has always (at least since the recording tape deck was invented) been available, why is it such a huge issue now? Recording tape decks didn't kill the music industry, and I don't see this killing it either. This latest development will probably only necessitate large-scale change in an industry that has needed such a "shot in the arm" for longer than I have been alive. They should (but probably won't) just quit their whining and get with the program (i.e. find a way to make MP3s profitable, trim the "fat" from their corporations, actually reward creativity in their ranks, etc.). I'm just getting a bit tired of hearing large, rich corporations whining about losing a couple dollar's worth of revenue to something that has always been a part of doing business in their chosen fields.
Actually, most of the stuff they play on the radio is crap. Maybe it's just because we don't have any good stations in the city I live in, or maybe it's just that radio stations in general play mostly crappy music. I'm not sure which it is. Anyway, I've bought several cds lately after downloading some mp3s from mp3.com and from listening to some illegal mp3s (which are now legal for me to have since I own the cds now). A few of the bands I probably would never have heard of if they weren't distributing their music as mp3s. The record industry is the real leech here. Their services will soon not be required and they're not happy about it. They want to cut off all other forms of distribution to keep their business model intact. I, for one, don't want to see that happen. I hope that we can soon come up with a good way of giving our money directly to the artists rather than 95% of it going to middlemen that are needed less every day.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
since most of the rest of the artcles concern themselves with other stuff I thought I'd put up some servers
172.16.31.193:6346
147.46.115.125:6346
134.117.89.229:6346
128.220.5.205:6346
193.123.241.240:6346
132.208.210.137:6346
149.75.17.149:6346
192.0.0.4:6346
24.112.143.109:6346
172.24.16.219:6346
207.170.70.5:6346
208.60.129.52:6346
216.227.102.81:6346
161.221.230.229:6346
172.16.11.15:6346
142.165.111.28:6346
216.131.212.160:6346
172.16.5.11:6346
9.37.194.240:6346
166.90.229.145:6346
172.16.31.227:6346
206.64.109.154:6346
208.21.4.182:6346
129.123.1.80:6346
129.59.46.151:6346
169.233.15.146:80
193.166.141.13:80
195.114.246.93:6346
205.215.216.198:6346
24.218.83.185:6346
128.180.92.18:6346
212.186.127.219:6346
212.54.17.19:6346
12.36.100.13:6346
38.31.45.22:23
128.180.111.65:6346
128.2.67.99:6346
137.99.152.196:6346
213.46.13.104:6346
216.112.244.28:7175
130.83.18.132:6346
216.116.39.15:6346
62.155.158.221:6346
216.221.74.37:6346
168.122.214.34:6346
195.252.186.3:6346
62.158.200.210:6346
4.4.206.183:6346
4.4.185.27:6346
166.102.57.4:6346
151.199.91.20:6346
207.109.17.87:6346
216.61.173.239:6346
199.74.92.138:6346
193.158.184.224:6346
216.61.88.51:6346
193.123.241.113:6346
195.7.69.21:6346
205.198.255.169:6346
147.129.139.173:6346
216.3.3.140:6346
195.219.8.118:6346
24.18.166.171:6346
128.42.156.61:6346
206.25.34.74:6346
24.72.2.36:6346
128.82.5.42:6346
213.46.6.229:6346
24.132.104.39:6346
212.204.141.73:6346
24.10.76.242:6346
212.206.155.25:6346
163.1.80.14:23
137.45.61.25:6346
24.65.186.134:666
207.164.109.103:6346
208.37.196.8:6346
131.111.203.157:6346
24.31.198.201:6346
209.215.28.205:6346
24.95.40.126:6346
24.28.33.158:6346
137.99.145.54:6346
142.176.90.21:6543
24.67.93.126:6346
216.254.19.66:6346
129.21.139.134:6346
208.239.114.4:6346
195.17.56.109:6868
157.142.98.93:23
193.2.132.13:6346
129.219.114.73:6346
128.118.210.95:6346
24.31.196.123:6346
24.26.188.14:6346
166.82.44.41:6346
146.186.211.218:6346
128.143.136.75:6346
63.195.117.90:6346
24.95.45.107:6346
129.21.110.135:6346
24.5.32.83:6346
208.177.195.70:6346
216.240.164.201:6346
24.68.132.108:6346
128.193.141.27:6346
155.245.240.117:6346
12.20.104.72:6346
155.33.78.110:6346
63.195.179.226:6346
130.83.18.116:6346
170.94.200.70:6346
212.17.127.69:6346
129.241.122.166:6346
63.23.113.221:6346
129.186.208.28:6346
208.225.27.59:6346
195.122.4.200:6346
212.204.129.245:6346
212.90.70.28:6346
131.212.82.76:6346
35.10.131.14:6346
141.44.23.87:6346
208.170.187.161:6346
209.185.175.83:6346
209.42.196.19:6346
136.183.29.151:6346
209.180.54.78:6346
208.139.225.20:6346
212.171.37.54:6346
216.37.28.132:6346
137.45.61.11:6346
208.28.188.55:6346
155.42.18.218:6346
128.146.97.209:6346
24.67.15.196:6346
193.1.135.80:6346
193.10.65.125:6346
150.131.11.110:6346
195.13.160.3:6346
208.141.130.52:6346
161.184.164.245:6346
194.47.219.116:6346
63.67.82.199:6346
209.240.42.145:6346
24.112.161.25:31337
24.141.255.92:6346
128.82.5.39:6346
63.248.2.129:6346
193.5.168.12:6346
192.75.12.69:6346
24.7.164.115:31337
142.59.242.125:6346
24.132.40.151:6346
203.111.29.218:6346
12.3.200.54:6346
209.115.22.61:6346
130.89.227.83:6346
24.15.208.63:6346
24.9.229.209:6346
146.186.231.161:6346
130.241.181.206:7999
24.93.24.97:6346
The fact that distributing creative work is cheap does not justify attempts to circumvent paying the artists.
Instead of making money from recordings, musicians will make their money from touring and promotions.
What if they don't want to tour ? Shouldn't they be payed whether they tour or not ?
The hundreds of companies making money by leeching funds from creative artists for the service of distribution of the artists' work will go out of business,
Personally, I'd like to see this happen. As the cost of distribution gos down, it will become easier for artists to distribute themselves without signing their souls away to a distributor.
Anti-Censorship tools are by their nature used to do things that are illegal. Sometimes you have to consider whether the laws that make something illegal make sense. The average dictator (if there is an average) uses censorship tools to silence both good things and bad. Pornography, hate speak, and crime are much less of a problem in totalitarian societies but free-press, free-religion, free-speech, and other freedoms are snuffed out. The freedom sword is always double edged; it always allows more good and more bad. You are right that Gnutella would allow all kinds of information to be spread across the internet. If you think that is only bad then you better think again about why the Internet has had and will have such great potential.
In the US, whether you work for a large corporation, for a small corporation, or whether you are a student at a university, whether you develop software in your "spare time" or during work hours, most likely, any work you do probably belongs to your employer or your school according to your contract with your employer. The only common exceptions to this are if your employer simply isn't at all in the computer field (and which employer these days isn't?) or if you are a freelancer or consultant.
This also raises interesting questions about what happens if an employee or student releases software under the GPL but it later turns out that they didn't own the software in the first place because of their employment contract. I suspect that the actual owner's rights would take precedence in that case and the GPL license would be void. In fact, that's probably the case with Gnutella. And if you put a lot of the GPL'ed software that is out there under a legal microscope, you'd probably find that a lot of it is actually owned by some university or company.
I wonder if Justin noticed that little sucking sound as his soul left his body when AOL (aka, the Devil) gave him all that money. Did they make him sign in blood?
It was pretty naive of him to expect that a mega-company like AOL was going to let him continue to develop whatever he wanted to without getting it cleared through their legal machine.
One of the more interesting points is that he may not have had the right to release anything under the GPL. Very likely, anything he produces from here on in belongs to AOL, and therefore any licensing terms would have to be approved by them.
Well, I don't know what kind of deal he signed with AOL, but there may very well be some sort of clause in there restricting this sort of thing. Now, Frankel is a smart guy. He probably wouldn't have accepted the deal if there was something horribly restrictive in there. But the issue here may be more subtle.
Even if there's no legal issue in terms of his contract with AOL, there is the fact that he's closely related to AOL->Time/Warner->Music Industry, and having someone in this family tree writing software that goes against the Family would not be a Good Thing. Anybody else writing a Gnutella-type program would probably be subject to the same kind of treatment.
Another thought is, of course, related to the nature of open source. I don't know if source was released yesterday or not with this program, I didn't have time to check out the site. If it was, though, someone else can easily continue this project. Seems kind of odd for me to say after my above comment, but you have to admit that this program has a better chance of survival outside of The Family, no?
Frankly, this is a piece of software that i want to see out there. I'm reminded of hotline, only better...which makes me think, how come nobody's filed lawsuits over hotline? Was it just timing?
Finally, just to make sure my position is clear, AOL is sucks.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
I can honestly say that while it sucks I do think AOL does have the right to stop Gnutella from being worked on at Nullsoft if they want to. That they have.
However, I still think it's a great project, so why don't the Nullsoft guys work on it in their own time? At least release the source on their own time and their own equipment and let the world do with it what they will. At least that way such a cool prog isn't dead.
Any legal buffs out there know whether even though the current state of Gnutella's been killed off by AOL, if work could still legally be done on it by the Nullsoft boys outside of Nullsoft itself?
If so I say go for it, dammit! Even releasing the source for the latest (stable) version they've made would be a huge step forward because others would come forward and work on it and make it what we all want it to be.
--
Erskin
geek.
..eh, but who's surprised.
"Justin and Tom work for Nullsoft, makers of Winamp and Shoutcast. See? AOL *CAN* bring you good things!," the Gnutella site said yesterday.
MWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
AOL and Time Warner lobbied so hard for the DCMA even before they were bed fellows I figured that gNutella wouldn't last long. Guess Justin is learning his lesson for sleeping with such monolopy. I bet he is pissed, but he should have seen it coming.
Wonder what AOL will do with him now, I do not know the contractural aggrements made when Nullsoft was acquired by AOL, but I bet the relationship between the Giant and the gnat is getting kindof strained.
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Those links have been superceded by this page, which seems to be a combined news and FAQ page. Note that the newest version of Gnutella, .491, has problems, so using .49 or .48 is a good idea (I'm using .48 at the moment). The page also shows some IP addresses to connect to to get you started, now that the main server is down.
Gnutella also has a very active EFNet channel (#gnutella, surprisingly enough). Come on over :).
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
http://www.allskin.com/gnutella/ ...it simply moved. I think AOL's going to get snippety with Nullsoft pretty soon. Let's get Justin Frankel lined up for a /. interview! We could all gain some insight there.
Synergy is your friend
I've made the program available here: http://zonedefense.dhs.org/gnutuilla_dl. html
No sig is worth reading.