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.
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!
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.
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
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
This discussion is old and boring. Napster itself is a tool for exchanging music. It is, however, used to exchange "illegal" music(???).
EMusic is using a bot on thre service and therefore should be banned from the network as anyone caught running one. I don't want to hear someone cry "it's a good bot!" or stuff like that. EMusic violates Napster' s TOS and even makes it public. There's no excuse for plain stupidity.
Aaaah! My blood pressure's coming down again...
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Napster may be used for theft, but the software itself is not a criminal. All it does is allow people to download songs from others. Some people view Napster as this evil tool, when all it really does is allow people to trade music. They could do this anyway, but Napster makes it much easier and more accessible. Very few people truly abuse it. Most of the users just downloaded a few selected songs, making the total loss to the artist virtually nothing.
And it's not like they make a ton on the CD either. They get very little of what they are sold for. Each song is worth cents. So buying CD's doesn't do them that much better.
Finally, having a little bot to monitor the files you have is an invasion of privacy. Those files could be legitimate rips from CD's. In short, any attempt to monitor Napster activity is no better than monitoring where you go on the Net - it is a blatant violation of privacy. Do you want some machine looking over your shoulder, seeing you downloading that "evil" music? Don't think so. The future lies in freedom, not in the old way of selling CD's costing in excess of 15 dollars.