Slashdot Mirror
Emusic Tracking MP3s On Napster
Nice Geek sent us a wired story talking about EMusic tracking
MP3s on Napster. Several issues: mainly the flaws of using MD5 checksums to determine the source of the MP3, but also the problem that using a bot violates Napster's terms of service. I don't really have any problems with this, but it'll be interesting to see what the next step will be.
And here is the crux of the matter. A) The artists often do not own the songs the write and sing, the record companies do. Many artists get little or nothing from "their" music. B) Considering the record industries "creative accounting" practices (i.e., screwing the artists), many people seem to find it difficult to accept the record companies claim of the higher moral ground.
You don't make a case against the theft of music via file-trading. It is theft, as the Napster user is getting the benefit of the music while the licensed distributor gets nothing in return.
I agree that the licensed distributors are sleazebags, fat cats who wine and dine little artists, seducing them into signing horribly restrictive contracts.
To shift the industry away from the fat cat executives,
Get the little indies to STAY independent. Those contracts are signed with their blood.
Organize secure downloads at reasonable prices. A buck a song, or even lower through a subscription service that can handle the microtransactions with a minimum of fuss.
Get debit cards in the hands of teenagers. They're the market for music money, yet so few teens have any purchasing power online due to the credit card hurdle.
[
> If you read your CD it says that it is illegal,
> without prior consent, to copy it to another
> form.
And if you bought a new car, opened the hood, and saw a tiny little sticker saying "it is illegal to modify this car in any way, including but not limited to the addition of racing stries, repainting and tinting of glass without written permission from Honda" would that stop you?
Just because someone writes some words on a peice of paper (or plastic) doesn't make you legally bound by them. In truth, it has been ruled that its perfectly legal to make copies for personal use...in fact, the law explicitly states that you CAN.
Legally, the record companies can NOT stop you. they can not take that right away. However, they write their little fine print anyway because they know that they can fool some people, some of the time.
> How would you feel, for example, if a book you
> wrote, was disseminated on the internet, and as
> a result you didn't sell any books?
I would track down the person who distributed it and shake their hand. It feels great to creat something and have someone else like it enough to share it with others. It feels great to have your work accepted and praised in such a way.
In fact, I can think of no greater praise for my work than to have someone hand a copy to someone else and suggest that they take a look at it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Failing that, chop the last byte off the file. It won't affect the music you hear - just cutting the last millisecond or so of sound out - but it will make the file size and MD5 hash different.
Finally, in order to calculate an MD5 hash, you need to download the whole file. EMusic plan to download every single file on Napster, just to check for files they claim rights to?? This, I must see!
Violates Napster's user agreement?
Ehr..So does 80% of the Napster users, if not
more, by downloading Music files and keeping them
longer than a day.
Who cares..Sueing individuals for downloading
illegal music is the same nonsense as prosecuting everyone with a VHS copy of some
movie.
Napster's user agreement is a joke..
Then again, it's a very good joke that prevents
them from being guilty of spreading
illegal copies. They are not, and I think Napster
is doing a great job.
How will this work? If N people mp3 a song, then unless they all use the same software, and the same options, they`ll get different files. Some may normalize the wav file before mp3`ing. Some will trim the file to remove silence at the end (for example, the penultimate track may have loads of silence to `hide` the bonus track).
If this took off, mp3 encoders could invert the song, or add some random bits to the end of the song.
Basically, there is no way they can do this. They`d have to constantly be downloading songs - any song - and then either listening to it, or use yet more vapourware - a tool to analyse a song and guess which song it actually is - before taking action.
I cant see how this would work!
Actually I think you could argue the complete opposite. Napster forced the big 5 Record Labels to acknowledge the Internet as a potential market. I'm sure Napster's press citing 20 million users and previously unrecognised demand helped get the attention of record company directors.
Do you think that without Napster and MyMp3.com, you would be seeing the current rush by the big 5 to start their own distribution sites?
Paul
Thankfully I get all of my online music via usenet...
First!
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me
Emusic is already an attractive alternative. I no longer have to waste my time downloading songs from users with 14.4 connections. I no longer have songs that are poorly ripped. No more partial rips. And no RIAA police banging on the door. All that for $10/month is a steal.
If only they had a system to suggest music I might like based on how I rate the songs I download.
Sounds like the BSA's "Pirate software detector vans" that can detect when you're using an illegal copy of a program.
They just want to scare poeple into behaving.
Haven't you heard? EULA and copyrights are evil.
I just found it incredibly funny that someone would complain, especially a slashdot editor, about violating the terms of service on Napster.
Haven't you heard? Napster can't control what their users do.
Nice. And it will take only a few weeks and then there is a crack which will mask the Files so that they can not be tracked anymore...
--
There is no such thing as gravity. The Earth just sucks.
We have something that can control Napster. Let's hope it succeeds - people think they have a right to steal music, and they don't. Just because it's not physical theft, doesn't make it not theft.
The artists (or the record company) own their recordings and have the right to do what they want with them.
Middle class white collar theft is no less theft than any other kind of theft.
Things about 'banning bots' etc are nothing set next to the fact that Napster is a tool for theft, plain and simple. These things are only used (or at lest 99%) to distribute stolen music.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
I was going to moderate on this story, but there's no moderation tag for "-1, Obviously Stupid", so I'll have to respond. Last time I checked, farming was one of the few remaining commodity markets in existence, which practically gaurantees that farmers are at the mercy of the few large corporations who buy the bulk of their products, and with the ongoing consolidations in the agriculturally-derived manufacturing industries (look at RJR Nabisco, look at Pillsbury being merged with General Mills), expect this to get worse.
It simple economics, the fewer buyers there are, and as long as sellers are mostly dependent on those buyers, the buyers will be able to set their price about as low as they want to. Where I live in Minnesota, this is a continuous issue-- where families that have farmed for generations are now having to find other means to make money since farming is becoming increasingly unprofitable at the smaller, family-sized farm level. In fact, there is a large movement, especially among the devotees of organic produce, to support locally-owned, family-style, non-corporate farms in a very direct way (through co-ops and such).
In other words, this analogy is flawed, I hear about farmers being ripped off a lot more than I hear about rock stars being ripped off. I also hear about farmers consistently losing ground through no fault of their own. Given the ease of capitalizing a CD pressing and the incredible number of outlets for same, I can't say I have the same sympathy for musicians too dumb not to whore themselves to RIAA member corps.
I do not have a signature
The guy that reversed engineered the protocol said that you only need to change one bit. What is to stop, say something like Gnapster to just change one bit at the start and end randomly? Will this affect the song playability that much? This an example where open-source clients are going to be so much better, especially considering an move by Napster to do this would be against their case.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
To put this into better perspective, distributed.net has been trying to find a single 64-bit key for close to three years now and the key rate is up to 121 billion keys per second without success.
Burris
If the RIAA moves slowly this will only encourage people to copy more music illegally, since 99%+ of the songs on Napster were originally ripped from legitimately purchased CDs. Napster should spur them on to find ways to make it possible for people to easily get music over the net. Since searching for a completely secure method of distributing music is going to be futile, anyway, they should concentrate on getting money from people by giving them what they want.
Of course they may well be too stupid/naive to understand this, but then they should be replaced with people who aren't.
I agree with you that there is a great deal of crap on the market. There are also some real jems. Lately Blue Note has been releasing some of their prize recordings on CD. Say what you like about music today being a rip off of everything good that was done by Pink Floyd, the Stones et. al. in the 70s, but remember that most of what they did was building on what John Coltrane and Miles Davis et. al. did in the 40s.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
Last time I checked the MD5 check used in NAPSTER is calculated off the first 300kb (ballpark). So changing the last bytes of the files won't change the MD5.
---
Inanimate Carbon Rod thanks you for your support. See you in 2004!
I hate doing this, considering I just replied to another post, but.. Policing Napster downloads isn't all fine and dandy, it violates their policy. If you agreed to the policy, you're therefore free to be banned from the service. Black and white. On or off. One or zero. That's it - nothing deeper. If there is an investigation system, then the only people who would be authorized to use it are Napster Inc., or people they in turn authorize. Besides, I have author permission on all 700 of my mp3's. I ripped and encoded them, gave myself permission.. Now, I don't allow you to copy them. Nyeh.
I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
"People don't have the right to privacy when they are publicly making available infringing songs," Hoffman said. "A burglar doesn't have that right when he's walking with a television under his arm."
What an incredibly misleading analogy. An mp3 is a digital representation of a song, not the real goods. Audio signals are removed and repetitous or similar patterns are looped, so what the listener is hearing is a reasonable fascimile of the music - no more. Comparing it to breaking into private property and stealing a television set is quite a stretch.
Your Support for Napster Can Make a Difference
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
We have something that can control Napster. Let's hope it succeeds - people think they have a right to steal music, and they don't. Just because it's not physical theft, doesn't make it not theft.
People do not have a right to copy music without permission under the current body of laws designed to compensate artists so that the increased body of art will further the public good. That being said, it is wrong to live under the contract of this society and disregard completely this piece of the contract.
Unauthorized copying is not ethical under the currently accepted system of artist repayment in the US. However, this is not a universal ethical guideline, and in other places it may not apply. Unauthorized copying is in no wy, shape, or form theft. The artist still has the master locked away for themselves and no one looses access to the artwork (actually the record company owns the work). Stealing an idea is akin to talking away the notebook of secret plans, copying such a notebook is simply unlawful replication, and not theft. The only thing that is possibly lost when an mp3 is downloaded illegally is the monetary compensation which the record company is entitled to by agreed upon US law, and this compensation is only truly lost if the kid had some intention of actually buying the work.
I am tired of the theft analogy. It was made up by software and record companies trying to sensationalize this entire process. Later society might realize that IP ownership applied to music has been in no way productive to society, esp. considering the downward spiral popular music has made in the last century, from baroque masterpieces and culturally viable folk art, to trite commercial music marketed to the LCD of the 14 year old population, with large stadium concerts (the worst accoustic environment imaginable) in which overpriced tickets result in riot and death.
Furthermore, as an owner of over 300 legally purchased CDs, I have found that through false promises and illegal trade restrictions, the music industry more of less owes me about $500-$1000. Add to that the piracy surcharge I paid on my blanks I used to copy BSD and Slackware legally. Fair, no?
You must own stock to actually support these theives.
Could you define the word 'complaint' for me?
;)
Thank you.
damn damn damn!
and I already had the Milkbones ready for 'em.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Whilst the move to digital, downloadable music is inevitable at this point, Napster has made sure that the RIAA will move as slowly as possible whilst aiming for maximum control over every aspect of online music.
I would disagree. If anything Napster has accelerated the industry's move to online distribution. RIAA (and the music industry in general) is an established bureacracy who believe the adage, "If we're making tons of money from brick and mortar stores, why should we go online"? Napster et al, have given the music industry a well deserved kick in the butt.
Napster really is not the future of online music, ...
Strictly speaking, I agree, but I think something Napster-like may be.
and has merely solidifed the opposition of a lot of artists to making their music available online
And support from a lot of other artists, especially (but not exclusivly) indie artists.
teenagers won't go out and buy a Brittany Spears CD
You say this like it's a bad thing. :-)
b) theft is still theft - the artists have not given their permission to do this and so anyone uploading their tracks onto Napster is infringing upon their rights to control what they produce.
And here is the crux of the matter. A) The artists often do not own the songs the write and sing, the record companies do. Many artists get little or nothing from "their" music. B) Considering the record industries "creative accounting" practices (i.e., screwing the artists), many people seem to find it difficult to accept the record companies claim of the higher moral ground.
I want to enjoy music I can download, and Napster stands in the way of this.
You're entitled to your opinion. To restate my opinion, I think Napster has been a wakeup call and the record companies will have to move damn fast to come up with a consumer acceptable online alternative.
// TODO: fix sig
What does all of this have to do with napster and you? Well, freeamp allows you to download/stream music from emusic fairly easily (for a fee--something like $10 a month). So, if the napster distribution channel dries up, they become a quite attractive alternative. No more crappy searches, no more little red dots beside the songs, linux integration, artist-tipping support. Now, I'm not saying that emusic's actions here are good or bad, but do have a legal approach to digital music, while napster/gnutella/etc are questionable at the very least. They do support an open source project as well.
You have a point. Stealing things is not right.
But opening a way to buy music while not letting the 'monopolist' record companies be the only ones to distribute it may make very well sense. Music that's not as good as other music may have a lower price. Plus, using the internet as a distribution medium is much cheaper than CD's that need packaging and handling.
sig not found
The reason you're seeing this come from Emusic and not The Big Five(tm) is that Emusic are a legitimate source of digital music. Unless people go to the effort of purposely modifying the mp3 files they get from Emusic before putting them in their Napster directory, the files will be identical.
Before now, there's never been any reason anyone would go to that effort. But now, I suspect you will see lots of utilities that flip some number of random bits in a file to destroy the signature.
Incidentally, there are plenty of other legitimate sources, and they're growing by the day. The majority are band's own websites... often an exclusive remix or a live version of a song. As a current example, the official Nine Inch Nails site contains two tracks that were not put on the new remix album "Things Falling Apart".
[TMB]
Couldn't agree with you more. All that Napster really does is make lots more really bad mp3s avaliable to a huge audience and see that they get handed around further. I stopped using Napster quite a while ago because so much of the music there sounds really bad (as if mp3s weren't bad enough to start with) and/or is missing the end of the song. As far as I'm concerned, it's still worth some money to be able to buy an album and know that I'm getting something quality.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
I suppose you pay the farmer directly for everything you eat, right?
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Why not make this part of the file-sharing protocol? The user could click a box that says "Use anti-signature device" before downloading and a few unimportant bits would get flipped intentionally during download. Then, every file would have a unique MD5 signature.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
They go through Napster to find cuts with "their" particular MD5 checksum. Every ripper, of course, creates bit-by-bit identical .mp3 files (needed to get the same MD5).
Looks to me like it would be useful only for detecting stuff that was downloaded from a "legitimate" source (are there any?) and put unchanged onto Napster.
As soon as Napster starts letting the record companies run bots against their servers, they're dead meat. All the record companies have to do is look for people serving stuff that *might* be theirs, and then download it to check it out. Of course, they'll have to keep downloading it to see if it has changed. Bandwidth? What bandwidth?
--
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
I agree with some points. Theft is theft. However, a good portion doesn't view downloading mp3s as wrong. Whether or not this is "morally" or "legally" wrong is irrelevant if the majority of society doesn't believe it to be so.
Sharing files on Napster is no different than lending someone one of your CDs for a day. You don't know what they are going to do with it, perhaps they just want to hear more of the band, perhaps they are going to copy it and sell it on the black market. The only difference is that Napster gets more press because it occurs on a larger scale.
I don't know what the solution to this is, but I think its unfair to say that Napster is completely wrong. Instead of trying to fight napster, the record labels should be looking for methods to compete with it, charging money if they desire, or finding ways to make purchasing records more popular. Peer to Peer is out of the bag. Even if they shut down Napster, there will be others. They should learn to adapt.
My 2 cents... Captain_Frisk