Is Napster Too Invasive?

Kyle Thomson asks: "I just left a Q&A with Hank Barry, C.E.O. of Napster (at University of Michigan). At the end, in a personal Q&A, he said that the banning of people was up to the artists, and that Napster fully complied with all requests. I then questioned him on the quick and easy ability to rejoin Napster. He said that 'the new version of Napster sprinkles bits around the hard drive. The only way to get back on is to buy a new computer.' So that leads me to the question of how invasive is Napster if it is leaving information everywhere on a hard drive?" What exactly does "sprinkling bits around the hard drive" really entail. I can see how this could mean "sprinkling random keys in your registry" but I admit to being a bit concerned by the actual description. Can anyone shed some light on this mechanism? Is it really as invasive as it sounds?

Comments

What about clones?

[CMiYC]

So what effect does this have on clones? If your Windows client stops working (I don't know how it works...I've never used it myself) can't you just use a clone to logon? What difference does it make if you are banned...can't you just create a new account?

That's something I never understood... or is that what he's referring to...making it impossible to create yourself a new user? If that's the case... I go back to my question...what about the effect on clones?

What worries me is that Napster will move towards not allowing clones to connect anymore...which would suck.

---

Gtk-Napster

[fliplap]

Actually, they do have a way of prohibiting clones. When new versions come up napster attempts to send an update, in the case of gtk-napster, this attempted send prohibits the clients from signing on. Same goes for older versions of gnapster and gnome-napster. I really did like gtk-napster the best. I am now using Gnapster because the gtk-napster author is in school and doesn't have time to fix the problem. I really wish napster would stop this "no clones" non-sense, it would make it easier for everyone.

Re:Gtk-Napster

[BigBlockMopar]

I really wish napster would stop this "no clones" non-sense, it would make it easier for everyone.

So do I. But you have to look at it from the business perspective. After all, all Napster's legal counsel, server farm and staff are paid for by investors that one day expect to reap some money out of this thing.

I was on Napster in August of 1999, with a V1.0 beta client. It had a little banner at the top, "Would you like to advertise here?"

This still strikes me as a good model to support their service. But even if Napster becomes a subscription-based service, the same thing applies:

Do you want clone clients available that maybe give the advertising you've sold a lesser prominance than the advertisers are expecting?

Do you want clone clients that might not be able to me managed from a subscription basis?

It's a pain in the ass, but I can fully understand their position on this matter.

What I *don't* understand is why the later clients (V2.0 Beta 6 and 7) weed out Wrapster files. Admittedly, they facilitate piracy of things other than music, but the Wrapster user is just exchanging MP3s, after all...

Can't you just see CD-burner manufacturers chasing after each other just to be able to advertise on Napster? <grin> The RIAA would pop them faster than a frog on a hotplate.

Sprinkles bits?

[Magus311X]

Interesting, but I doubt a new computer would be necessary.

At worst I'd hope the most you'd have to do is clean out the MBR and low-level format the drive. Though IMHO, if it requires more than needing to reformat the filesystem, it may be going a bit too far.

Just my thoughts.
-----

Re:Sprinkles bits?

[toast0]

if correctly setup, NT would make it possible to setup a user with access to very little on the system, and you could run napster as that user (win2k lets you shift+rightclick on something and run as a different user for most things, shortcuts to programs included)

that wouldn't be the same thing, but aweful close

toast0

Re:Sprinkles bits?

[Frater 219]

At worst I'd hope the most you'd have to do is clean out the MBR and low-level format the drive. Though IMHO, if it requires more than needing to reformat the filesystem, it may be going a bit too far.

Take off and nuke the drive from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

(But seriously -- installing a proper OS should be enough to prevent any crazed apps "sprinkling bits" all over your filesystem. Preferably one where you could run any untrusted app in a chroot jail. Is that even possible under Win32? [No flame intended -- I'd actually like to know if it is.])

Lots Of Programs Do This

[CritterNYC]

There are tons of windows shareware programs that do the 'sprinkle bits around' thing. How do you think they keep track of that 30 day trial period and not allow you to just reinstall to get another 30 days? I've seen bits end up stuffed in the registry, WIN.INI, SYSTEM.INI and in random text files. I wouldn't be too worried. When Napster's new client has this ability, use NT and do a system snapshot, install Napster, then do a compare to the snapshot and see what was changed that shouldn't have been. You could even install and then uninstall between snapshots to see just what is left behind.

File monitoring utilities

[Prolog-X]

SysInternals's File Monitor, Registry Monitor, VXD Monitor, and TDI Monitor could be useful for detecting and removing Napster's invasive tags.

These "sprinklings" are easy to thwart.

[alcohollins]

Using a program like InCtrl, you can easily track any changes made to your system by the installation program. Since you can track what changes are made to your system, you can COMPLETELY uninstall it when you need to.

PaintShop Pro does the same "sprinking" that Napster does. You can use InCtrl for all these types of programs.

InCtrl is made by Ziff Davis, and it's free. Get it from ZDNet.

Technique for anywho who cares to try it

[John Jorsett]

Since I don't really care, I'm not going to do this myself, but one way to find out what Napster puts on the drive is to do the install with GoBack active. GoBack keeps a log of what files are changed/created on the drive and you could look at that to see what it does. You can also use GoBack to make a pseudo drive that contains the exact state of the hard disk files prior to installation, so you can do a comparison of the changed files to see exactly what was done to them. This seems like a lot of trouble to go to when you can just get one of the many Napster clones out there and install it.

"The only way to get back on is to buy a new computer." Oh, puhleeze. Even if one were a total idiot, the worst that would be necessary would be to format the disk and reinstall the OS. Any other comments from this guy should be considered in the light of his uttering this silliness.