Slashdot Mirror
Do-It-Yourself Sue Napster Software
drix writes "I ran across a rather disturbing piece of software called Media Enforcer. Basically, it does the same thing that Metallica and Dr. Dre paid NetPD to do a few weeks ago: it lurks around on Napster, gathering the names of any files matching a certain pattern that are offered on the service. Thus, type in "Backstreet Boys" and it will log every person offering Backstreet Boys files on Napster for as long as you want to leave it running. What's scarier - it's next version will add support for doing the same thing simultaneously on the CuteMX, iMesh, and Scour.net filesharing networks. Zeropaid.com is running an interview with the creator of this program, who, not surprisingly, wishes to remain anonymous. " I guess the problem with all this is that a file named Metallica isn't necessary a Metallica song. If the software downloaded the data and actually checked it, I'd feel better about it.
Oh great, now all the indie bands, DJs, and garage artists who are actually benefitting from MP3 distribution can get on the bandwagon and be just like Dr. Dre.
Got Rhinos?
..and now name all their files Metalica....
Disclaimer: I have used Napster. I do have mp3s of songs I don't own.
This is really sad if you're going to collect the information to use against people...
...on the other hand, it could be subverted to find stuff you want, without having to watch Napster all day.
--
Here's my mirror
This is just a normal, legitimate use of Napster. What were we expecting to happen? While Napster allows for easy indexing of files, it also allows for easy indexing of file ownership.
I wouldn't call it scary, just a normal and expected use of the technology.
-Dean
Then its official, what we need to do is create a method where in Files dont actually contain the content they are labelled as such that a more thorough checking by the requester would ensure that contents = required file.
.. as it would invalidate searching.
Tricky
Maybe a bridge removing/anonmysing the user would be better.
Or better yet
MIRCOPAYMENTS [ insert crap MS Wallet gag here]
I still say im happy to 'resell' by tracks where the receiver pays a central source a mini amount for the benefit of receiving the whole track.
Heck Napster could then enforce Track sharing against a registered list of pay per download files.
The premium here being that files in this category are checked and validated and payments can goto the Musicians.
I dunno the whole above maybe too idealistic
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
And now a song like Run DMC vs. Metallica [remix] or whatever now gets them booted off too! fuck that, Napster should do to these idiots what Slashdot did to Microsoft -- Send back a letter from the lawyer that is just lawyeresque for "fuck off". This bullshit isn't good enough proof.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
NetPD will claim to own the patent. Then we'll have a whole new patent war.
Copy any file around 4MB in your harddisk to a file with "Metallica" in it's name (make sure there's no copyright attached to the original file) and share it on your Napster.
Snapping a faked MP3 header on the file is even better.
A sig is redundant.
If you go to the page linked you'll see that he wrote this software because he feels that the Internet dissasociates people from the feel of stealing.
He is completely wrong. The use of Napster is neither legally nor morally theft. It is copyright infringement, something that I believe is wrong, but it is not theft.
We need to get the word out that Napster is neither piracy nor theft, it is copyright infringement. A speciic legal term with a specific legal meaning, just like the others which have nothing to do with copyright.
I expect that something like this will be available before long for Gnutella.
If any of you have samizdat to distribute, you'd better do it now or find alternate communication channels. The day when we will be issued microphones to be worn at all times cannot be far off.
www.alarmist.org
Perhaps this was already answered in the original discussions about NetPD, but how do programs like this get around Napster's use policy which, iirc, explicitly bans bots like this, or really, bots of any kind?
Are they just counting on the term 'bot' being too vague to hold up in court? Is napster just not entitled to make this restriction on their service? I would think violating the usage policy amounts to unlawful use of computing resources. Can Napster file counter-suit? Or even just have the names thrown out in any court proceedings?
Why did I write this application? I have a very clear interest in the success of the entertainment industry in the digital age. While many people try to argue their theft with variants of "information should be free" it is simply not true.
I hate to admit it, but I understand his point. I think someone said it best, if you own the CD, why let Napster have access to it? You really have no reason to share your music with other people.
-Frijoles-
Oh yeah, it pissed us off, too. But hey, we were breaking the rules. It was just embarrassing to have one's name up on a public list like that, as if we'd cashed a bad check at El Charro or something (JDC, I know you're out there. . .).
Folks who are sharing Metallica songs are more than likely breaking the rules, too. Their ruse is up, too. So, if you wanna break the rules, you'd better find a better way to hide your tracks.
-Omar
I was recently banned when the MetalliBot ran
across my bait, a track I created.
I renamed the file so it included the words
'Metallica' and 'One', but was obviously not a
Metallicrap song.
Had they even checked the ID3 tag, it would have
shown that this file was not really Metallica at all.
I wonder how much Lars is paying NetPD for a simple keyword search...
--KMM
=-=-=
Until the software starts downloading what you're watching for, there's no benefit whatsoever. Napster clients can only download after they search.
You'd have to search again to actually download.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I guess the problem with all this is that a file named Metallica isn't necessary a Metallica song. If the software downloaded the data and actually checked it, I'd feel better about it.
Well, this may be part of the "solution" against it. If people start sharing empty files with Metallica as a name, it makes finding the real Metallica songs harder. All there is to do is the same as e-mail: files like "Metallica - enpty - One.mpg" for the false files and "Metallica - One.mp3" for the real one... just my $.02.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Boy would I be pissed if I downloaded a Metallica song and it turned out to be some current teen-age pop song...
Seriously though, I've thought we should rename a bunch of freely-distributable MP3s so that they contained the name Metallica.
Hmm. We have all those slashdot "Geeks in Space" episodes just sitting around....
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
dd if=/dev/zero of=metallicasnewrecord.mp3 bs=50000000 count=1
just try it...
this is terrible. if some anonymous character can log user activities on napster, scour, whatever services, what is stopping large organizations with plenty of resources (e.g. government) to watch anything they want? all they need to do is listen and log packets. the term "big brother" is really beginning to hit home.
tcd004
Here's my Microsoft Parody, where's yours?
What do you do, lurk around on /., keeping reloading the front page for new articles every 15 seconds just so you can have the first post and get lowered karma from being moderated down? Wow what a privilege to have no life, I bow down to your greatness. I think I will get real work done and only check /. once in awhile...
Napster explicitly bans the use of bots.
If you're breaking the usage agreement of Napster by running this bot, then doesn't that make you as bad as the people ripping off music?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well this has happend before. When something happen that makes the old way of doing things obsolote things just have to change.
Now that it exists software that can enable people to simply exchange their music/movies/u.s.w./ it will happen. If it is for the better or for the worse I can't say. The age of Britney's may be over which would really be a shame now wouldn't it? If the records companys want to make money they have to adapt. Soon. Very soon.
It's would be nice to know what the hole in FreeNet is ( besides that the hubs are illegall).
It's called new wave but it's just the same.
This service could be used to keep track of the people who offer/download mp3s by "artists" like Enya or Backstreet Boys and report them to their sister company who would then hand out polite mercy killings. I think it could be done tastefully and in such a way as to be considered humane. Either that or kill all the people who listen to Tom Waits and then I'd be out of my misery.
Spunk
I couln't agree more. It's a very sensible thing to do and entirely in the spirit of the net.
As for the re-naming of files, that's a complete red herring. People find songs on Napster because the songs are filed under sensible names - i.e. the name of the song. Whatever filing mechanism you decide to use, if you don't want to use names, then software such as this will always be able to access that filing mechanism just as easily as the official client software.
Seems pretty reasonable to me - no better or worse than grepping usenet to see if people are sayig good or bad things about your company's products - which is itself no better or worse than kibo.
It's what you do in the real world next, that matters. Software is just software..
-----
The creation of this type of software was inevitable. In order to facilitate the transfer, these file-sharing programs need to know the IP address of the sender and the recipient. In addition, services like Napster that identify users by a unique username have yet another field that allows for the identification of this user.
All that is required to create a program like this is to set it to request all file names that contain a substring. When the software receives the username/IP from which the file is being sent, it logs it instead of merely downloading the file.
In order to prevent this "spying," the file-sharing utility would need to obscure the identity of the users by acting as an intermediary. Either the server could contact the computer offering the file, download it to the server, and then send it from the server to the second client (waste of bandwidth and forces the company hosting the main server to commit copyright violation by temporarily hosting potentially pirated files), or it could somehow encrypt the identifiable information so that only a secret routine in the program could decrypt it for use (which is against the principle of open source).
I think that, at least for the near future, we will have to accept the possibility of spying on file-sharing networks as a given.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Anybody fancy "finding" a copy of this and putting it up next time Seagram are using this program?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
It's every other week some guy faxes a radio station complaining that they don't support local bands.
Ask an artist what he/she thinks not a front stage media puppet.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I'm renaming every file to "Metallica1.mp3","Metallica2.mp3", etc. regardless of content.
Metallica runs their search, they spot your song along with the millions of actual Metallica singles being passed around, they mark you to be removed by Napster. You complain, naturally, since you haven't actually been distributing their music.
Oops, but you just used their copyrighted (oand probably trademarked) name, "Metallica", on your distribution. Guess what, they've now got reason to send the legal spawn after your Napster account anyway.
It might not be as real an offence as actually distributing their music, but don't expect that to slow them down when they decide to step on pirate distribution. You don't have a legal leg to stand on.
You know what to do with the HELLO.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
You know what to do with the HELLO.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
As many have pointed out; all the software can do is say 'person x has a file with the string y in it' but it was suggested the software simply needs to download and check the file - the question is, how? I'm sure with a reasonably trained neural net (for each different song) or stats coupled with filtering, a fast machine could do the job but is it worth it? Basically, does this software have much point other than to encourage people to place bait on the Napster 'network'? Anti-spam measured in usenet posts isn't hard, and defeating this software won't be either. On the other hand, I do agree with the principle (and I'm a poor student so could easily be considered one of those who'd benefit from illegal mp3's) that if you've signed up with a certain set of laws (e.g. by living volountarily in the USA/UK/etc..) then you ought to abide by them. "I will not agree with all that you say but I will die for your right to say it" - Voltaire (sort of)
-- Thus conscience does make cowards of us all - Hamlet
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Napster is a public forum, not your house. You put a list of your MP3's on Napster _expecting_ people to search it. If you don't like it, set your share directory to /dev/null.
What you're saying about "illegal search" is like me dumping out a box of 100 CD's in the middle of the sidewalk, walking away to go do some shopping or chat with friends, and then run back and say "Hey! Don't look at those! They're mine! This is illegal search!"
For more information, click here.
What the world really needs is a B2C eLawsuit service. This program could automatically create an eLawsuit suing the person hosting the file, possibly naming some other defendants (napster, whoever).
Actually I should probably shut up becuase this might be a profitable idea. *shudder*.
I see that suesombody.com is already taken....
One more drink, and I'll move on. --Dave Matthews Band
just imagine: /dev/spy&; cat /dev/spy >RIAA &; cat /dev/spy > BMG; cat /dev/spy > CDnow.
distributed# mediaenforcer *.napserver.* > stats.doubleclick.net >
Sux.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
..."Arr, matey" side of file-sharing, they might realize that the system he is creating is the digital equivalent of the Neilsons. A ratings system for distributed media. Or at least the basis of one.
That's what I think this should be used for. Sueing 300,000 people for listening to your music might make great headlines, and make the lawyers tons of cash, but it is hardly the way to run a civilized society. Or an entertainment business. It's time to see the future and embrace it.
--
+&x
If you are not downloading illegal media off napster, THEN you should have nothing to worry about right?
My friend got "Metallicaed" as he put it from napster due to one song -- this song was a rare remix of a Metallica song by one of his favorite bands - KMFDM... Now thats lame.
---
How long have you been listening to the world's famous?
'Bout six weeks.
Six weeks!
Why? So you can just get booted like another 500,000 people and no one will care?
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
All you need to do is to make your own MP3 of yourself reading your own Slashdot article about Metallica, then make it available on Napster as What_I_Think_Of_Metallica.mp3. You'll soon have Metallica on your tail for a copyright infringement that you didn't do.
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
Read what Jacob Neilson has to say about Micropayment. I reckon Nik is spot on this point, but it could be open to abuse - do you pay per listen or per track? What happens when you trade it to someone else? Can you sell it on etc?
You people only want to use Napster to listen to music by artists who want their music on Napster, right?
This way, they can prevent people from sharing music from artists who want nothing to do with Napster.
This way you are happy, the RIAA is happy, Metallica is happy, Everyone's happy.
BTW: Anyone who calls a non-Metallica song, Metallica is an idiot. It is just a rouse to subvert the system. Just like: the next time you go to download sourcecode to some program, you get to decide between Metallica1.c Metallica2.c, etc. That is just dumb and defeats the purpose of filenames!
Unles you don't care what Metallica or any other artist wants; only that you want to listen to their music for free. *gasp* Could it be?
Hello! Isn't this (gasp) considered... a bot? Grouds to get your IP banned? Although, I suppose they wouldn't care about that, seeing as by the time they were found out, they'd have gotten all the info they need.
/. reporting this... are they TRYING to give ammo to the RIAA and their goons?
Also, why is
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Couldn't someone create a file called "Metallica" (as was previously suggested) and then to expand upon it, add a copyright info area, which in essence would hove some sort of non-disclosure agreement, and then bind the viewer to do something like... oh, perhaps NOT sue Napster?
It just seems like you could find a way to use this technology against these corporations, and get them stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Slashdot users (as a whole) are smarter than a friggin' lawyer, aren't we?
regards,
Ben Carlson
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Doesn't this violate Napster's policy of no bots? If not, how do they get around it?
I don't see what's so scary about this. I'd say it's necessary. What's wrong with accountability? Maybe this sort of thing will cause that accountability to land upon the actual thieves rather than the tool makers.
And if the first generation of these tools, with their crude pattern-matching, generates some false positives, that's no big deal. If you're going to prosecute someone for piracy, you're obviously going to have to manually confirm the offenses. Nobody's suggesting that something like this should be used to automatically generate arrest warrants.
For samizdat and whistle-blowing, I don't see a problem either. The goal there is for someone to be able to speak anonymously, and getting an anonymous message out will always be possible. Once it's out, it doesn't need to be mirrored and distributed anonymously.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I feel that this software would greatly benefit anyone that is losing money to piracy every day. I've started work on a GTK+ clone, and it's coming along quite well, actually. Are there any other efforts out there under way?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
I've been banned from Napster and can not do anything about this. I tried deleting registry info and creating a new user, but I still get this error. Does anyone know the workaround? Please help. dmitry@estation.com
http://dtum.livejournal.com
Don't argue semantics, we all know what theft is. Don't try to hide behind legal-ese. You want the music, you can get it without paying, so you do it. That's theft. Whether or not you feel justified, for whatever reason, is a whole different story. (and by you, i mean the general you, as in whoever uses the service, not you specifically)
Usage policies about bots are bullshit. If a server can dictate how I retrieve and process information, then MPAA can dictate how I watch a DVD. Fuck that.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Actually, this thing is nothing more than search engine. So I see nothing bad (or even too interesting) in it. So mp3-warez d00dz would name their files M3T4LL1C4.mp3, and go on. Or just name them after the song title and put a [M] before, and everybody will just know [M] means metallica. That's an old and ethernal shield-sword game.
BTW, I'm not sure you can name your music "Metallica" without Metallica's permission. Don't they have a sort of TM over the name?
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
I hate to say this... I reeeeeally do... But 1337 speak may be the solution to all this.
Sure, this package can find out who's offering "Metallica", but what about "M377A1iCA"? It's a temporary solution at best, but it's just obfuscated enough to defeat corporate chowderheads.
I feel like I just ate my young...
Very good. 100% agree
http://dtum.livejournal.com
I believe the remix was released on a KMFDM album, if it was released at all ...
---
How long have you been listening to the world's famous?
'Bout six weeks.
Six weeks!
The same technique that we use to avoid automatic mail address kleebers will work:
insert slightly misspelled artist names, song names, and obvious things like REMOVEME, extra letters, etc.
Not hard.
Why should you sue napstaer on this? Do you sue phone company when someone calls you and says something bad? Do you sue roadbuilders if someone steals your car? Sue whoever trading wares, if you like - why Napster is at blame? They are media carrier.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
The masses see the achille's heel of Napster enforcement is that a filename containing a certain text may not actually be by that artist. The MP3 format does indeed have a field for artist. It is unambiguous whether the text "metallica" refers to the name of the artist, or part of the name of the song.
But here's the gotcha: most artists will probably be _more_ furious if you misrepresent music and wrongly attribute it to them, or away from them. If you package up a Backstreet Boys song, and attribute it to Metallica, Metallica may even have _more_ ground to sue you (for libel, for example). If you attribute it away from them, if you claim that a Metallica song was by somebody _besides_ Metallica, that is even a larger crime (identity theft!). But this case is considerably more difficult to detect.
If you don't use napster now, but you don't like what's going on, you can help.
D/L Napster and install on a machine you don't use (or one that can handle the increased net trafic) and then grab RMS singing from here
work magic (to convert to MP3...some pls post if there is a way to do this) and rename the file numerous times to the name of various copyrighted works. Do this as many times as you can (don't we all have a couple of 2 gig drives lying around?)
That way...if the use this search, their results will be skewed. No I realize that there are some problems with this for the intelligent, but I figure if the rest of the ppl suing napster are half as clueless as Lars proved he was, then we're home free.
-fp
I think the first one will be titled "Metallica" Then "Dr Dre." That would be really nice. Then they could sue me and my band would get a lot of press and they would look like fools!
How's that a troll?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
What the pirates need to understand is, although they may be somewhat computer savvy, the people playing on the other side aren't marching much before. The very concept of Napster was considered revolutionary when it debuted the pirates said, "See, we can do anything with the internet", and didn't think twice about the consequences. It is ironic that the copyright police are slowly but surely doing the same thing. The disgusting thing is that the pirates believe that somehow the police should be stopped even though their merits lie precisely where police's lie ("it's just bits over a wire").
I've been fighting with this issue for a while. Let's consider the flip side to all this for a change. I've written an application that represents SEVERAL *months* of my time and effort. I've given that application to a set of friends for testing under an agreed upon "licensing" arrangement that they will not distribute that application. This is an obvious desire of mine because I want to distribute the application myself in order to ensure I'm properly reimbursed. If those people decided on their own to start swapping that application with a bunch of other people, I would be furious. That's *my* application that *I* worked for months on and now *they're* distributing it freely without *my* involvement whatsoever.
That's the side of this issue that 99% of the people swapping files via Napster are not (perhaps can not) adequately considering. It may not be possible to fully appreciate that side of things unless you've been in that position yourself. So it may be difficult to convey to someone that has never really had the feel of ownership and pride associated with having created something like that how an author of a piece of work (music, art, software, whatever) really feels when his work is being freely distributed without his involvement.
That being said, I admit to having swapped music via Napster. I admit to having downloaded a song that I do not own a legitimate license for. I do so because I tell myself that I would never have purchased that song under any other circumstance. I only grabbed it because it was free and available. If it were not so easily accessible, I would never have bought it. So the author of the work in this case didn't loose a penny. I would not have bought it anyway. In fact, the author is getting free exposure because I may decide after listening to some number of songs for free that I really like his work and I would, as a result, go buy a CD or two that I would not have otherwise. That's the same ol' argument that's been used to justify software swapping for YEARS (I remember making that comparison as many as 15 years ago).
So I find myself wondering how I can see both sides of this coin and come to a happy median. How could someone else convince me as an author that swapping my work freely is a good thing? I think it boils down to what TYPE of work is being swapped. In my case, I might crank out a useful, market-able application *once* every *two* years! Someone swapping my work probably does not encourage them to buy anything else of mine because there just isn't anything else of mine available. In the case of songs, it's a little different. While creating a song involves a great deal of work by a large number of people, the bottom line is that a particular artist has many, many songs available on the market. It's also true that the "consumers" of these songs have a large number of choices available to them. They could listen to your song or they could listen to someone elses, so getting a little free exposure might help a song artist while it probably doesn't help me at all (there aren't likely to be all that many alternatives to the applications I write).
What do other "authors" think about this issue? We're hearing GOBS and GOBS from users, but very little from authors.
Stealing is when person A has object X. Person B comes along, and without permission from the rightful owner of object X, takes object X. Person B now has posession of object X and person A no longer has object X.
You might think that, and it certainly might not be an unreasonable position for a layman, but in many jurisdictions, theft is considerably more broadly defined than that.
For example, in the UK, theft has been interpreted to mean something along the lines of 'appropriating any of the bundle of rights of the legal owner of a thing, with intent permanently to deprive', in a decision based on the Theft Act 1968. Now the right to copy a work resides solely in the owner of a copyright, unless that right is otherwise given away/sold/whatever, according to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
So, there's a reasonable argument that copyright theft really is theft, at least in the UK; at least insofar as the actus reus (that is to say, the actual wrong action).
As to the substance of your point about 'what stealing is', consider this small Gedankenexperiment, consider the man who breaks into your car whilst its parked outside the office, and takes it for a drive around the city, kindly returning it to the car park after he's finished with it, and before you come out of work. Theft, or not theft?
-- O improbe amor, quid non mortalia pectora cogis!
This shows how code really _is_ law, for better or, in this case, for worse.
Whoever wrote the Enforcer has all the right to do so and distribute it for free or otherwise, but I find the guy's attitude simply despicable - especially in his glib remarks about the alleged hole in Freenet's security. He has the priorities all wrong.
(I wonder if this is going to start a new pattern. So far, lots of good coders have made a name for themselves by writing, say, "alternative" applications that went against the mainstream - e.g. PGP. Now, as a means of self-promotion, one can do better by sucking up to the corporate world: "look at this, I think it's going to help you nab all those pesky teenagers!")
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
cat /vmlinuz | lame SomeMetalicaSong.mp3
After blowing their ear drums listening to Metalica full volume, most fans won't notice the difference.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
-rpl
I wonder if the nuclear missile decoy defense.
Make an mp3 of yourself quipping your favorite python quotes and rename it to have keywords in the title.
To actually prove that a user had the song it would require somebody listening to 314,352 mp3s to verify that it's the real thing.
What a horrible job. Ugggg can you imagine listening to the same Back Street Boys song 15,000 time? *shudder*
One way to trick the bot/crawler would be to put up the list of shared files and their aliases as a JPG image.
Maybe someone could create a utility that will generate filelist.jpg given a list of filenames and aliases.
Duct tape solution. But should work well for a while.
Gee, and this software will surely stop all piracy. We won't rename our files "M3t4llic4 - F0r Wh0m Th3 B3ll T0lls.mp3" or anything like that just to dodge such measures. Pirates, ingeniously fooling countermeasures with counter-countermeasures? Never happen, no.....
Kinda like a dog with seven pupils in its eyes... Kinda like a madness that refuses to subside...
That little speech on the front page of that web site is complete and utter bullsh*t. Record sales were way up for the year 99-00 even with Napster and other similar clients like it. The record industry make BILLIONS a year and the monetary loss that mp3's MAY cause them to loose is insignificant. Can they name one person that Napster is actually hurting? Do these people realize the most people actually buy the album that they download mp3's of? Can they honestly say that they have never in their life copied something that they didnt own? I don't think so. Not to mention the lower bands that are quite as "popular" as say Metallica. The rich get richer and poorer get poorer.
In the anarchist view of the internet, there has been this view the "bad things" will happen to "bad people." I'm sure the Metallica web site received a lot of attention after their decision to go after Napster. But then this can go both ways. Would Napster be vulnerable to a denial of service attack? Hmmm, has anyone ever downloaded what they thought was the song they wanted and received a 3:00 commercial instead?
just for laughs - check this picture
Disclaimers...
I don't use Napster. I get my MP3s from a different distributed (yet slowly congealing) source.
Yes, it's possible to rename a file to make it look incriminating, or to rename an incriminating file to make it look innocent. There is a legal problem with this: Offering something AS an illegal item MAKES IT an illegal item.
Nevertheless, people keep claiming that filename matching should be done away with in favor of pattern matching the content itself. One question: HOW?
These are compressed audio files. How do you know how tightly squeezed they are? How big a sample do you need before you can call it a match? Ulrich's snare drum is likely to sound like a whole lot of snare drums, no?
Even if we were talking about WAVs, there's still the little-understood and often forgotten problem of (if this is the right word for it) JITTER. IIRC, CDDA rips aren't perfect. They might miss a bit or two, and subsequent bytes will be bit shifted. (How they still sound correct is beyond me, somehow it works).
So now we're searching for a bit pattern within a compressed bit pattern that might be bit shifted by some arbitrary ammount? Please...
And while we're at it, can people please be a bit more realistic about this whole thing? MP3 is not going to destroy the RIAA. They're going to do that themselves by gouging their customers and producing crap. The other side of the spectrum is shouting about MP3 being free advertising which helps the labels. Neither is correct; MP3 is just a tiny blip on the radar screen. The RIAA HAS to defend their copyrights or else lose them.
(Let's see the moderators cope with this... The first part is informative, the second part is flamebait and probably redundant, masquerading as informative and insightful.)
--Threed
The Slashdot Sig Virus was foiled before it could spread.
I don't care what the author of this program says, he is a freaking businessman, soon, he will be contacted by artists and media companies to help them write programs to do more "crappy intersting" stuff like this. This is an opporunity for money. He is a smart guy, I find it amusing. :) Good luck dude, make some money of the fucking evil empire.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Generate an md5sum for the title of the file, then rename the file as such:
8c3bbd53022cef66ba014bf82d0b1584_www.chaos.org_fil elist.html.mp3
Then of course, you have a web page called filelist.html or some such that people can use to cross reference.
It's not perfect, but:
Opinion: Scientology is a cult you should avoid. Follow the
"My interest lies in the fact that many people in addition to the artists - like engineers and producers - make their living off of royalties."
Am I wrong or is using government legislation to insure employment for people displaced by technology far more socialistic than denying anonymity, which isn't necesarilly communist at all.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
This piece of software is simple enough, and whether or not you want to argue the point of having bots on Napster (or any of the other services), it really is time that someone created something like this. The problem is everyone's jumping on the "It's for suing people" bandwagon - artists like Chuck D., etc., that *PROMOTE* MP3 usage, trading, and whatnot, can use this as a valuable tool. It's not just for generating lists of people to ban - it serves to track just how much something's traded, a popularity guide. Someone should grab this software to generate an internet Billboard list of sorts. Don't assume, just because of the slant of the article, that the only uses are negative - a split atom doesn't always make a bomb.
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
The name of a file does not guarantee the contents of it, and therefore only actually downloading the file would prove beyong doubt the mp3 listed on napster is indeed what it is.
using public key encryption style tech, you have a cloud of trusted music traders. you have their public keys. you use the public key to run your target songname thru some alg. and out pops some hashed (garbled) song name. you then search by this and find it.
the automated bots won't find 'metallica', but instead, these songs are hiding under names such as:
#)#&)(JLW#U)D*QL#%JH)*
of course I haven't thought this thru enough to write a spec or code to it yet but it sounds like its high time for name-munging on the filesharing utils.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Perhaps Napster doesn't care, or perhaps it is only technically feasible for Napster to detect a bot as obvious as one that sits in chat and annoys everyone.
Napster is just a pain in the butt to use.
What color is the sky in your world? If you can write a script in 15 minutes how the hell can you have a problem using Napster's client? It's butt simple and if still you don't like it try gnapster for linux (which rocks). If you have a problem with finding or d/l songs you probably just need more bandwidth.
All someone needs to do is rename the files on their server to:
00index.txt
mp3-1.mp3
mp3-2.mp3
mp3-3.mp3
mp3-4.mp3
mp3-5.mp3
where in "00index.txt" it lists the files:
mp3-1.mp3 : Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3
mp3-2.mp3 : u-Ziq - Brace Yourself, Jason!.mp3
mp3-3.mp3 : Smashing Pumpkins - Bullet With Butterfly Wings.mp3
mp3-4.mp3 : Nine Inch Nails - Pilgrimage.mp3
mp3-5.mp3 : Dr. Dre - Whatever The Hell Dr. Dre Writes.mp3
and so on.
Insidious, isn't it? And they won't be able to check every one, because people can constantly set it up different ways.
Of course, this would only work on files that share things OTHER than mp3's, but it would work nonetheless.
It's like the "spam" email addresses on Slashdot: every one can be (very easily) made a different way.
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/
Its a troll because the flood of little clam minds on slashdot cant open thier minds wide enough to let a crack of dissention into thier prepackaged jon katz sanctioned geek lifestyles.
Thats cool, it sort of reafirms the basic premiss that once a place has become a cartoonimage of itself the real worth has moved on.
so it is with slashdot.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Now, what can we do to stop this guy? We have some of the most brilliant minds in a field that represents the ultimate in intellectual free-thinking. Surely, if we come together we can figure out a *practical*, *ethical* and *legal* means to stop his service or render its results thoroughly invalid.
Hey, wait a minute. I know who he is. I cancelled his download of Donna Summers' Macarthur Park Suite, in 256kbps, after waiting for him to download 95% of it. He instant messaged me telling me that he'd get revenge.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Seriously. That usage policy will be laughed off the very same way Napster proponents (well, the very large we-have-the-right-to-free-commercial-music crowd anyway) laugh off copyright. And the mainstream press probably won't give a rat's ass.
Not that I completely disagree, mind you. I agree with the principle of the new program, but it will be a large disservice to those more scrupulous Napster users who just use the service to preview albums, like myself.
On the other hand, I bet there'll be a new version of Napster that will eliminate this in, like, 3 hours or so. And then we will have a war similar to the AOL/MS instant-messaging version battle.
-JimTheta
My stupid web site
This whole Napster thing is getting out of hand, and it threatens to tar the entire digital software distribution industry with the sort of 'fuck-you-freebie-ism' that Napster seems to be about.
That's a pretty strong statement, but, let's face it, most every single song on Napster is from one copyrighted/protected source of another. At least, the ones that people use it for. For every one legitimate user of Napster, there are ten thousand who are just using it to get music for free (that they'd otherwise have to pay for).
I think Metallica made an interesting point in their Slashdot interview. I don't believe that it's controversial that artists should be able to say who can copy their work. If you don't agree with this, you can stop reading here, because we don't have a common basis for what follows. It's all about how to allow artists to have their say about what people do with their work.
Imagine a scheme whereby artists get this choice: each artist generates a public/private key pair. They 'sign' each of their tracks on each of their CDs: encrypting the name of the song, the name of the artist, and information on how/when the song can be distributed, in some agreed format. One flag might be 'no Napster-style distribution'.
MP3 ripping software will support a new standard, wherein the signature for each track is tagged onto the MP3 that's ripped from a CD.
Napster-like services that want to participate in the scheme have copies of the public key for every artist that participates. Before a track is listed on the database of the Napster-like service, the signature is checked. If it agrees, (i.e. filenames reflect contents, artist name etc) and the redistribution permission data allows this track to be redistributed in a Napster-like service, all is well. Otherwise, the service will refuse to list the file.
By making the permissions data that's signed with the track reasonably fine-grained, artists can enforce their rights. Napster-like services actually gain some measure of moral respectability, and digital distribution might actually survive the year without being legislated into oblivion.
Come to think of it, the artists don't even need to encode the data onto their CDs: it can be distributed from CDDB style servers. In fact, anyone should be allowed to add their public key to the Napster-like services' key database, so the 'struggling new artists' that these services allegedly support can allow their work to be freely distributed, whilst the Metallica's of this world can have the greater control that they want.
What do you guys think?
-- O improbe amor, quid non mortalia pectora cogis!
if they cant enforce it, the policy does not exist. the US legal system is unable to enforce this without massive violations of peoples privacy or assuming that people are guilty until they prove their innocence.
CD Sales are UP. Reguardless of what the big labels are trying to claim. BIG Labels (much like the one that Metallica is on) are seeing SMALLER bands on SMALL labels getting MORE sales because of Napster. The BIG labels DONT like the SMALL labels making more money than them. Dr Dre, and anyone else, is just jumping onto the band wagon here... Lets see, we talk about them all the time. I wonder how many people have tried to download a Metallica or Dr Dre MP3 __JUST__ to see what they sound like. Looks like free publicity for anyone who jumps aboard the bandwagon to me...
--- Tulsa T. Nawi, On Display @ Shattered.com
Now napster should sue them (Metallica, Dr. Dre, NetPD, new s/w writer etc....) for using napster's infrastructure and resources and technology and blah..blah...for trying to locate napster users without napster's permission and knowledge. Hey, is Napster Technology patented ? If so then they can sue for that too. Just a thought....
no it just nullifies the contract. not really illegal in a criminal sort of way. Of course napster cant enforce that contract so it is meaningless in every sense of the word anyway
First, there's this endless back-and-forth escalation between the distribution technology (Napster) and the control technology (Media Enforcer). As soon as someone figures out how the other side's tech "really" works, they can code up countermeasures.
And second, this whole struggle is kind of inevitable because the Media Enforcer-style tech is (in some slightly iffy sense) indistinguishable from the search technology that lets people find tracks to download in the first place. Technology has unanticipated uses.
I'm not sure exactly what that will do? Give them a bogus file that's empty?
So if I have a directory called Metallica on my computer and I use it to store all my mp3s, I'll still be banned even if I don't have any Metallica songs. Metallica/TMBG - Famous Polka.mp3 Metallica/Ricky Martin - I'm too sexy.mp3 will both be listed as Metallica files, right?
I have the explicit right to title my works anything i want. Check up on that, its true. This program makes no attemp to discern if this is really a metallica track, or simply a file with the word metallica in it (this turns into a really big problem when you consider that groups like Bush or Live might start to use this crappy software) I really dont think that any evidence gathered by this bot would stand for one millisecond in court. sorry.
- Josh "Yoshi" Steiner
---
Xiphoid Process Records - http://xiphoidprocess.com
San Francisco based electronic music.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
Isn't this considered a bot, which napster expressly forbids users from running in their agreement as well as their login messages? So this software is being used to 'prevent piracy' while being unethical in and of itself.
Just my $.02
-----------
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777iX+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
--Ks9
This is all Microsofts fault. They developed that piece o crap visual basic so any fool can write software. Then we have the good ol point and click web now, so any humanoid form that is slightly evolved beyond a wildebeast can get on, and you mix the two together ...and viola... you have just killed the web. Thanks guys.. no really.. thanks alot.
Remember when you had to have a clue to use the net? There was a real community spirit. People were sharing stuff and it was good. The suits and laywers didn't know or care about it. But now, when any moron can "surf the web", it's totally corrupt. It's over Johhny... it's over. So... any putz can build some VB piece of crap... sigh
It's a sad day... a sad day indeed
Thank you.
It comes down to two issues: Quantity (the ammount of piracy going on) and, in the case of music, Quality (how good the copies are).
... para: "They found out that the demand curve for drugs isn't linear..." - with respect to the level of prohibition, ranging from absolute to nonexistant - "...it's U-shaped."
Ulrich is on record as having said that taping is no biggie. Why? Signal loss. Even first generation copies are noticably degraded from the original. Playing tapes degrades them. Copying from a tape... forget it.
In the case of your software being pirated, the copy is either perfect or non-functional. All or none. And so your only real "bitch" would be if so many copies were made that you no longer have a market.
The happy medium lies therein... Napster makes the files too easily and widely available for the labels' comfort.
One could draw a parallel with the War on Drugs. A quote (FAIR USE, GODDAMNIT!) from Drug Crazy, by Mike Grey, "Open markets promote use, prohibition peddles use"
That is, you make it absolutely freely available and it will mushroom uncontrollably. You clamp down on it 100% and it will again mushroom.
What the labels need to come to terms with (the commercial software producers seem to have "got" this one already) is that easing up just a little will push the problem into the underground. There will be piracy (and drug use) no matter what they do, but the kind of piracy that goes on in the software field is of the "baseball card" type - the software isn't going to be USED, just warehoused, and it wouldn't have been purchased anyway.
--Threed
The Slashdot Sig Virus was foiled before it could spread.
Since you seem so concerned about the rights of artists / engineers /
producers / whatever, have you obtained permission from the Backstreet
Boys to use their name to promoted your product? If not, aren't you
violating their rights by using their name?
Napster and other similar services are not evil as you believe. I've
bought more CDs since I've been using Napster than I ever have. Why?
Napster enables users to find the music that they are looking for. For
example: Stupid radio DJs almost never give you the name of the artist
and song that you are listening to. With Napster, I can enter what little
information that I have and figure out who I'm looking for, what album the
song is on, and if anything else on the ablum is worth listening to
because I'll be damned if I'm wasting $18 on a CD if there is only one
track on it that I like. If I don't know, I won't buy AT ALL! Then, the
artist, record company, and all those engineers, producers and etc. LOSE.
Since the introduction of Napster (as well as the whole MP3 format),
artists and record companies have sold their albums in RECORD HIGH
quantities and have made RECORD windfall profits. To believe that MP3s or
Napster are harming artists in any way is ludicrous and NAIVE. If
anything, it helps the artists because it opens them up to the ENTIRE
WORLD - not just whatever record stores happen to carry their music.
Then, if the consumer likes it, the consumer will BUY it.
Artists such as Metallica have certainly hurt themselves by pursuing their
fans over Napster. I used to be a big fan of Metallica. I currently own
every big album that Metallica ever made. I was a fan since before they
made it big. I remember seeing them here in Nashville about 12 years ago
when they opened for Ozzy. They had a big tear in their backdrop and
people were BOOING and THROWING SHOES AT THEM. Even so, I thought they
rocked. Now - I think they SUCK. They SUCK for threatening their fans and
I refuse to listen to them any more because of it, even though I love
their music. They can have their CDs back - I don't want them anymore.
If you believe so strongly in protecting the rights of these artists, then
make yourself known. Who are you? As far as I know, you could be a
record company or even Metallica.
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
Hmmmmmmmm.... I can just imagine the tv commercials
Anouncer: Guess what kids? Now YOU can be like Metallica!
Kids: Me?! No way, metallica are cool!
Anouncer: Well now you CAN be like them with the do-it-yourself sue-napster kit!
Kids: Wow! You mean i can be as cool as Metallica and Dre and sue napster!
Anouncer: Yes! The kit even includes 40 free hours of AOL! Get it now, before supplies run out!
[Order screen shows up]
Anouncer: Available at K-Mart and any store that supports major record labels.
But seriously folks, it's possible you could CRC the encoded sound data and scan for files matching that CRC. Not that it wouldn't generate more than a few false positives, even with a 32-bit CRC, or be very easily defeated by looping the song out to analog and re-encoding it back to MP3, producing a virtually identical-sounding file with a totally different signature
Oh, and where will all the extra bandwidth to cover all these bot downloads come from? Just curious
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Well, sure, you get booted. But then you file the form to say "I was unjustly accused", which would be in fact true, and then when Metallica or Dre or whoever doesn't pursue you and you get let back in, you are probably safe from future action. Sort of a get-out-of-jail free card, perhaps.
Oh, yeah, IANAL. (Or should that be I-ANAL...)
-reemul
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
You know, it's funny how the restrictions on the net (UCITA, DCMA, etc.), or threat thereof, seem to often be in response to users doing things they shouldn't be anyway (ie, pirating). Looks to me like we brought it on ourselves. If you want the internet to remain free/open/anonymous, don't download those mp3's (or whatever) that you didn't pay for.
If you abuse it, don't be surprised when you lose it.
preacher mode off.
I am a man of const int sorrows
It is interesting that the author of this program to reveal the identity of people sharing files does not want their identity revealed.
IIRC, I'm pretty sure there's a clause in the Napster licensing agreement forbidding the use of bots on Napster. Someone pointed out in the "Metallica Sues Napster" article that, technically, NetPD was breaking the agreement and the list of names it gave metallica was not valid. There must be some kind of similar argument you can make here.
Is there any way to detect these detection programs? They could then be systematically banned from Napster and other services due to their autmated status.
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
This program clearly violates the terms of use of Napster as they require you to use a previously registered user name. From the Napster site,
As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way; (ii) use the Napster browser or service, or attempt to penetrate, modify or manipulate the Napster browser or service or any of the hardware or software thereof in order to: invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any Napster account holder or user, or modify, erase or damage any information contained on the computer of any user connected to the Napster service; or (iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser.
1) it's iloveyou.txt.vbs ... .mpg, then it would just open up in WMP or any other application, you probably meant .mpg.vbs , which you have to be really dumb to open...
2) if you change the ext. to
To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish. ---Euripides
I'm glad you brought up that last point. I logged into Napster recently and got a notice saying that I had been banned by Dr. Dre. The problem is, I don't have a single Dr. Dre mp3, let alone have one shared in Napster. After looking through all of my shared mp3s, I finally found a versus remix that includes an Eminem song that FEATURES Dr. Dre...but it was made by some music lover in his basement, and was a vs. remix, not a full song....I imagine quite a few people are going to find themselves in the same boat.
Speaking of Versus remixes, anyone know a good place to find them? I guess I can't use Napster for it anymore...until I hack up my registry to get a decent re-installation.
www.niftyness.com
------
Let me give you the lowdown
First of all, this program only checks the names of files on your hard drive. What if you riped a Metallica CD you owned and it found it and banned you. You would be forced to go through this whole long process of agreeing to some statement that says you never stole anything from them and purcesed the songs legitimately. This allows anyone to be harrased for any songs they own legally!!!!!!! Secondly, it only checks the name of the song. What if you had a song badmouthing metallica called "metallica sucks.mp3". This would come up in the program and you would be banned as well. Obviously, this program is not the answer to any problem, but just creates 20 new problems.
Well well well. I downloaded this tool to see how many people were enjoying MY art without MY permission and it seems every Napster user is! My band is called mp3 (well, not really a band - nobody else wanted to join, said I was selfish. Ha!). Oh, my first single is called Control Freak. But I won't let you listen to it because it's mine. Art isn't meant to be shared. Mwa ha ha ha
Honestly people ... Why all the fuss ? Encrypted file sharing is already here Filetopia Why bother using insecure systems like Napster, Cutemx etc. etc. ?
One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Everybody, create an empty file with the band's name, and some song of theirs. Choose randomly from their catalog. Then sue Metallica for falsely accusing you of pirating their "product", when they get Napster to kick you off. Ick, the word "product" tastes offal when used about art.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
What are you economically-challenged or an RIAA mouthpiece? Out of the remaining $14 would you like to guess how much of that cost could be eliminated if:
- No "artifacts" have to be shipped to retail locations
- No shoplifting occurs
- No waste write-offs(i.e., copies of the cd that don't ever sell in every store around the world get thrown away eventually because it's cheaper than shipping them back)
- No cost of excessive packaging to help prevent theft (not to mention the lessened environmental impact)
Not being the prez at Sony I can't be sure, but based on what I know about other retail stores (apparel, food, liquor, etc.) try somewhere around $5-7...So forget your $14 theory and go post on a subject you know something aboutIt's not funny till someone gets hurt.
This is too funny. Some bored geek decides that it's ok write software that allows for the pirating of intellectual property (music), and someone else comes along and provides a way to collect the names of the guilty. There's really no issue here in my opinion. I have neither any concern, nor any sympathy for the people using Napster to steal intellectual property. If they can be identified, so much the better.
Before Napster, you could get MP3's. You could hang out with 1337 d00dz on IRC and hope they'd be nice to you. You could hope your friends had it. You could go to ftp sites that made you visit porno sites and click banners to get passwords that half the time would result in being told there were too many users.
What made Napster special is that it was EASY. No more "in crowds". No more day-long quests for one song. You typed in the title, you got the song.
grep -ri 'should work'
Says the anonymous programmer in the interview:
Well, anybody know what he's talking about? I can't believe that nobody's brought this up already. If there's a way to track files back to their original posters, it really needs to be fixed before Freenet hits v1.0 and the protocol is solidified. After all, one of the points of the Freenet is to ensure that people can exercise their free speech without fear of reprisal and without worrying that their posting will be squelched by the powers-that-be.
N.b. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that it will also be used for IP violation, but that's not the point -- there's already no shortage of ways to violate IP law. There isn't a vast supply of ways to safely exercise free speech.
Looking at the Freenet protocol now, I don't see any obvious flaws that would let me track down a file's poster, but that's not surprising, given that the programmers have been working on this protocol for some time now. Anyone else want to check on this?
Freenet home page
Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
The Fourier transform translates a short (512 or so sample) set of sequential datapoints into a same-size set of intensities at several frequencies.
- Divide a waveform into 512-sample windows.
- Take FFT on each window.
- Plot the time (in windows since start) on the X axis, the FFT frequency on the Y axis, and the FFT output (intensity of frequencies) on the brightness/Z axis. This gives you what is called a "voiceprint."
- Pattern match voiceprints to known voiceprints of Metallica studio recordings.
MPEG audio layer 3's psychoacoustic quantization will distort the voiceprint somewhat, but pattern matching can work around this.Will I retire or break 10K?
IMO, programmers who use their talent to write programs like this, or censorware, or programs that force ads to be viewed before content, or tools to spy on people surfing the web, or whatever should be the first against the wall after the revolution. They're traitors against the spirit that made it possible for them to even touch a computer or network, much less control one. (Disclaimer: I am not adovcating actual murder of these programmers. I do hope to make them think a little.)
I like the quote "It's by apple, so it must be good!".
:)
Um, yeah...
Aside from the immediate potential (Rub here to continue, big boy), I see a lot of possibilities for gaming and even accessibility.
If they add tactile feedback, the possibilities are endless.
--Threed
The Slashdot Sig Virus was foiled before it could spread.
Let's all stop pretending that trading commercial music isn't illegal... I'm a composer and I'd hate to think that my music is being traded around like some phonic whore, but not for the monetary reasons.
If I want a certain jazz/funk album, let's say a Medeski Martin and Wood album, I'm going to buy it. One, jazz/funk albums are never on the net. Because jazz/funk is worth owning. It's not MTV, it's not fad and it's quality musicianship. If my songs are not being bought, they must not be worth anything. I buy jazz, not `backstreet babies'.
If I produce a song ie: this one of mine it's going to be good enough that someone would like to spend money to have a collection of legitimate CDs/Records/Whatever.
It's not going to be because of how big my chest is, how many Carson Daily interviews I've had or what my personal life is like. Cheap image -> cheap music -> cheap returns
I love all the effort that Metallica has put forth. I can't wait to see them give up. Who cares what protocol/application we use? It's community no matter what app you use. Do we really think that any one ~970K application is the problem when I can order a 768KBIT line into my house for ~$50/month?
How hard is it to code 970K with VB type dev software? How hard is it to stop coding like this? Is the application the problem or the expectation of total control over that 768KBIT line?
Metallica: 0 TCP/IP Packets: (2.71 * 10^331)
And what good is "Nabster/Scour/(insert 970K name here)"-tracking software going to do anyway? It's just another pointless information-collecting tool that noone has the time to deal with.
Everyone is so paranoid about information being collected about them. Why. No one even looks at the log files or anything else. So what if an encyclopedia of screen names is being produced. It'll just sit there collecting dust like an encyclopedia does.
I really don't think that MP3's are going to change the music world. I think it's going to make them wake up after all this time of producing boy-bands, girl-bands and overnight success stories.
MP3: kills one-hits dead.
OpenNap and Gnutella
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Are you trying to tell me that everytime someone downloads a song, the record company has to replace it with another CD?
It seems strange to me that some of the same people who use the defense that technology isn't bad, just certain uses of technology are bad are now the same ones arguing that this particular piece of technology is bad.
Technology, in my opinion, is not "good" or "bad". It just depends on how it is used. One could probably even argue on the "for" side of massively destructive bombs. After all, how else will we blow up those asteroids that are headed for us?
Actually, In Asia theft has always been illegal, but up until relatively recently copyright laws didnt exist. Really a copyright infringment is no different to a patent infringment or a trademark infringement, yet patent infringment isnt theft, but if cought you maybe sued - Do you Understand the difference between criminal law & civil law?
If someone runs gnapster on a locked-down *nix box with identd and everything else turned off, with a made up napster user name on a dynamic ip connection + email address at hotmail, how in the hell are they every going to get found?
Yes, you can eventually figure out who was using the IP at what time and find who owns the dial up account. Still, on a multi-user system, how do you know who it was?
The software "finds" people who - might - be violating a licence agreement.
(Many people on Napster, for instance, own the software - the software makes no attempt to verify this - or even - that the "name" on the software is even what it is). (And its not illegal to name something anything that the user wants)
However, this software violates the licence agreement necessary to particpate in Napster.
If one's wrong, and - notice, Napster is written with strong disclaimers that they're not responsible for actions - isn't the other?
This software seems to have the same disclaimer - "its up to you what you do with it (go after those immoral licence breakers with something that breaks licences)"
Addison
>You may think it's fair, but it's not "fair use"
>in the legal sense and is actually illegal. If
>that upsets you, change the law, don't break it.
Bzzzzttt!!! Wrongo!
If a law is unfair, you have a MORAL obligation to break it. Ever read a little essay called "Civil Disobedience", written by gool ol' Henry David?
Ever read anything by a guy by the name of Thomas Jefferson?
Don't they teach you little AC trolls about people like Ghandi, Rosa Parks, George Washington, and Nelson Mandella in grade school anymore?
Ya know, I doubt that whole "breaking away from the British Empire" thing was actually LEGAL under the law.
john
Imagine all the people...
Haven't seen anyone mention this yet but check out gnutallica -- they encourage you to share Metallica mp3s, as long as they are live bootlegs. Metallica encourages such trading themselves, and Lars reiterated that in the slashdot interview. Now how is netPD or other software going to determine whether the mp3 is copyrighted studio releases or a bootleg live show?
...do a search on microsoft, kerberos, and DMCA (Digital Millenieum Copyright Act). later
Hasdi
Everyone sharing files on Napster should rename all of the songs The Carpenters - track X and really beat their system.
I sig, therefore I am.
This may have been mentioned in a thread somewhere, but why can't they encrypt the data so that someone with what is essential an IP sniffer can read your transaction?
I'm going ot put the word 'metallica' in the titles of all the mp3's I share.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh brother.. Are you really comparing petty music bootleggers to the likes of Rosa Parks, Ghandi and Mandella?
You know who else uses the same, tired and bullshit analogy? People who murder abortionists.
Yes, I realize you were specifically defending getting another copy of your scratched CD, but in the argument of following the law and breaking the law, you joined the breaking side. Along with all these other kids.
WHY HAS SLASHDOT sided with stealing? Why does slashdot hate American business? Why do slashdot moderators mod up the posts that defend Slashdot's official bias, and mod down posts that go against slashdot and in favor of the laws of our civil society? Moderating should only judge the "quality" of a post, not whether or not the opinions expressed are consistant with the moderator's. Sheesh. F ALL OF YOU!!
Calling out bogus battery capacity claims.
Mopetopallopicopa
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I want to use Napster to distribute my music... I'm far from the only one. For those of us who want to distribute our music without playing the copyright game (and there's a lot, look at how many artists are on mp3.com), Napster is legitimately useful.
Just because 99.99% of Napster users are lame ass pirates, doesn't mean Napster has no legitimate purpose. This situation is a fault of users actions, not the Napster program.
If everyone stopped using Usenet except for pirates, would that mean Usenet had no legitimate purpose ?
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
Heh, we should all just number our mp3 files and keep a txt document containing the track listing for them nearby. =P
Yes, but having Metallica in the name of an mp3 is not offering it as a Metallica song. I may have Anti_Metallica_Rant.mp3, or Metallica_Cover.mp3. And I think that for any method you may come up with for identifying filenames indicate illegal content, you'll find there are filenames for legal content the method will flag illegal. So while filenames may be an indicator of possible piracy, trying to claim anything more (eg Metallica getting users kicked off Napster) based on filename methods is not viable.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
Whats with these lameness filters? I thought this was free speach? I don't flame or troll, but I put up with it. If I want to yell, I'll yell. ASCII art is stupied but, a picture speaks a thousand words. I know you CmdrTaco Zomies are gonna make this "-1". Screw it, I'm a karma martyer.
Do not wright in this space.
Media Enforcer
Keep those geeks from your music
Sue Five Seven Five
(From the login message)
*
* -- NO BOTS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS SERVICE. IF YOU RUN ONE HERE, --
* -- IT WILL BE BLOCKED AND YOUR IP WILL BE PERMANENTLY BANNED. --
*
Hmm... a binary-only program, from an anonymous source, intended for people that want to restrict file sharing on Napster.
Has anyone considered that perhaps this program contains a Trojan horse?
Maybe it is intended to get back at Metallica et. al, by surrepetiously doing something to any computer that it is run on.
At least I would never run this on my machine... (or any other binary-only program of unknown origin)
3) (unless you guys are talking about the video) it's mp3.vbs
--
+&x
"Fuck Mettalica".mp3
then when they try to log your IP
ban you
and list it in court
you get to sue their asses off. And I'll be laughing mine off.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I err'd the tempo
A poet's heart, a fool's mind
Litigate my ass
WHY HAS SLASHDOT sided with stealing? Why does slashdot hate American business? Why do slashdot moderators mod up the posts that defend Slashdot's official bias, and mod down posts that go against slashdot and in favor of the laws of our civil society? Moderating should only judge the "quality" of a post, not whether or not the opinions expressed are consistant with the moderator's. Sheesh. F ALL OF YOU!!
Well my post was moderated up (the root of this thread) and I do not side with breaking laws.
I think this bias is in your mind. People are smart and can usually detect an insightful comment even if it is opposing their personal views. Give people the benefit of the doubt and you find that people are smarting than you might think. At least it will resolve your stress.
Now that means if I posted my abstract-electronica track Metallica Ate My Napster, I'd get black-banned. Now that's progress.
I think that the whole metallica Vs. napster shit is all about how we aren't responsible for our actions in america.
Scenario: Let's say that I walk into the supermarket and walk by the candy stand and see a piece of candy (song) that I like. If I steal that candy, yes, it is stealing. If I eat it (listen to MP3) and then pay for it before I leave the store (buy CD), is it stealing? I don't think so.
But on the other hand, if I were a little boy named metallica that ratted out a person (330,000) because I stole a piece of candy, then sued the store for making the candy so easy to steal (napster makes music easy to pirate), what is wrong with this picture?
If a person makes a product and it goes to a store, and someone steals it, it is the persons responsibility to not steal. Not the stores, even though the store has videocameras so they don't get ripped off and as such lose money. The music industry sees this as bad because they are getting ripped off while smaller (and better than metallica) bands are getting more of a market share because of services like napster. It makes it easier for people to pirate music, yes, but it also makes it easier for people to get descent music from lesser known bands. The ones lars said that were great but got turned down by the recording company, they are going online to publicize themselves, and guess what, they're killing the music industry cash cows. The music industry relies on one hit wonders, and they know it. Napster kills one hit wonders because you don't have to pay 14 dollars for a hansen CD then realize that they really suck and you shouldn't have bought it anyway. And most stores have a policy of no CD returns. So instead of being stuck, you can delete the MP3 with one swift keystroke, and rid yourself of the crappy music $14 richer. Kill the cash cow and metallica.
Join Us.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
napster has a no bot policy in effect
therefore, any use of this program is illegal
well, i'm not sure if it is illegal, but it does violate the agremenet when people sign on
any use of information gathered in this method should not therefore be valid
- Of all the thing that I have lost, I miss my mind the most.
I do a little coding, not much but enough to amuse me and make things easier for the network. I've downloaded music from Napster, heck I've even burned it to CD so I could listen to it in the car.... why?
Because the radio stations around here suck, we lost are only alternative station to another Hip Hop (that's 4 or is it 5 now, I can't keep track) So now I have the choice of elevator music, old old rock or talk radio.
This being said you'd think I'd be the perfect one to buy CDs but I'm not a CD customer, I never have been. I think all in all I've purcased under 10 cds in my life (22 years in case you're wondering). Ah but I am a customer you say, well all but 3 were gifts, and the ones that wern't met with the trash soon after I bought them.
I'm not going into any depth why I don't buy CDs I'll just list some of them: Price, Content, Customization, and the fact I have better things to spend my money on then something I can hear (or used to be able to) on the radio.
I think most of the problem is something they created for themselves, their (RIAA) goal is to make money. (I can't really fault them there, if looking out for yourself wasn't popular capitalism wouldn't exist, for the most part everyone looks out for themselves/family first.)
Anyway back to something resembeling a point, After the radio was invented people started equating it with music, after a bit longer they got used to being about to tune in for the latest songs and go to specific stations for certain music. Fast forward to now... They (the record companies) play some "their songs" (ok the artist's songs or are they any more after some of those contracts) for free over the radio, heck they "pay" (bribe, offer prizes etc...) for those songs to be played. So they give away 2 at most 3 songs in order to entice someone to buy the cd with the rest on it. But they gave some of those same songs away to be played for free on the radio.
I may be totally off base here but I think people don't see the "cost" of listening to the radio and view music as free if they can hear it on the radio. And that I think is the whole problem that the (RIAA, record companies, artists) are facing.
Anyway its late so be kind in the flames.
I hear the next version of the software will have a "sue" button for added convenience.
A group of programmers in the UK are working on a new program similar to Napster. It doesn't store the tracks on the central database so can't be closed download. Find out more at http://www.metallicster.uklinux.net/
To me, the real issue is one of authority. If the justice system of this or any other country wants to pursue Napster or its users, so be it. The crime, in my opinion, is that in an area of very questionable and untested law, the indistry is being allowed to enforce what it believes to be the law, simply because they have an enourmous pool of resources for CIVIL suits. IF this is piracy, where is the justice department, where is the FBI kicking down dorm room doors and seizing OpenNap servers? With the exeption of a few notable cases in the DVD area of this fight, there has been little or no movement officially. It seems that cyber-law is decided more often by who has the legal resources to stay in the fight longest. If anyone was aghast at the Etoys thing, or the questionable tactics Microsoft used consistantly, then I would suggest using the same critical eye with this situation. More is being resolved with threats, and to me that is never healthy, no matter which side is right. This software is about intimidation, a big, ugly script kiddie with tons of money to play with.
Quotes from the article:
"But if you want to say something anonymously, go to your local library, use anonymizer, and post something to a newsgroup. More power to you."
So we're should only be anonymous at the library...or if we've just programmed a controversial program and are getting hate mail. ;-)
"It's hard to say since it has been mirrored around, but I know it is in the thousands. The use of it won't ever hit the millions like Napster- finding pirates is much less popular than finding MP3s!"
Vast majority of which are being downloaded to engineer a workaround....
My question, does this "out" the person holding the MP3 files on their drive--which could be legitimate? or the persons doing the downloading?
a) ever tape off a movie or copy a cassette? To equate stealing a non-renewable object with information that can be copied unlimited times is avioding the issue. I steal a bmw, there's one less bmw, i deplete nothing by using napster. Lars himself stated this is an issue of pronciple and that the losses invilved are so miniscule they would never have noticed it. Go ask a bmw dealer how losing a z8 and not getting reimbursed would effect his overhead. b)There are no police chasing anyone. If you want you analogy to be correct, imagine BMW lawyers enforcing their own interpretation of the law, shutting down dealerships that people steal cars from because they allow people to test drive. Napster is a inanimate thing. if people abuse it, let the authorities handle it. If they don't then maybe it isn't as big of a deal as the bullies let on.
needs corrective brain surgery. quick.
he's got a heck of a point.
man, where are my moderator points when I need them...I'd have counter moderated this in a heartbeat...
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Thank you for introducing me to that website. I am a large fan of the macabe, and search without end for images to ease my tortured soul. This site has many lovely images. My hat off to you, Mr. Cox.
I'm sorry. What I meant to say was 'please excuse me.'
what came out of my mouth was 'Move or I'll kill you!'