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.
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 would they want to? This tool is ACTUALLY, IMHO, the first one that could be used to calculate ratings and "#1 Hits", i.e. "The Most Downloaded Song." As media becomes more free and it becomes trivial (and legal) for me to download last weeks X-Files, a system like this would be an excellent replacement for the VERY screwed up ratings systems we have for both TV and radio.
--
+&x
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.
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?
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.
I don't think so. When Napster places limitations on their system they are saying "We pay for these servers, we pay for this bandwidth, it is our property which we allow you to use under the following conditions." By contrast, the MPAA wants to say "you paid for the dvd, it is your property, however we still wish to dictate the means by which you use it."
I agree that another organization dictating what I can do with my own property is bogus, but they are perfectly entitled to control their OWN property.
More to the point however, even if you do dislike Napster's use of it, even if you could convince me that it was a shitty thing for them to do, there it stands nonetheless, and I still don't understand how NetPD or this new software hope to dodge it.
Johnath
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.
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!
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.