Slashdot Mirror
Napster to Filter by Filenames
mE123 writes: "Zdnet is reporting that Napster said that they would voluntarily block songs by filtering the filenames sometime this weekend. Because no one would ever spell Meta11ica wrong." Meanwhile, back at the ranch, FSF legal eagle Eben Moglen is wasting no time getting the word out about Napster alternatives.
The irony here is that Napster's LYING about the jtechnical challenges of MD5 sum blocking is what led to this. They've maintained MANY, MANY times (in sworn declarations, even) that MD5 sum blocking is impossible. The above link has their VP of Engineering, Eddie Kessler, stating "Given the large universe of MD5 checksums, it is impossible for Napster to monitor the checksums when we process thousands of new files a second. Napster's service would be rendered unusable under such conditions." But now, it's suddenly possible to block based on a TEXT SEARCH, which is much more computationally intensive than an MD5 sum compare? Can you say "perjury," boys and girls?
Anyway, I'm just amused by the fact that they're being hoist on their own petard. If they hadn't protested overmuch that MD5 was impossible, and just done it, they might've been able to keep it going for the indies. But text compares are gonna kill the service - once they get 50,000 bands in there (and millions of track names), EVERY file you try to share will match SOMETHING.
M4nd4t0ry mi55p311ing! I love it.
sulli
RTFJ.
Not that I expected any less from a bunch of common thieves.
As opposed to what? Corporate thieves? Those who bribe politicians for legislation? Those who fix prices in an attempt to avoid fair market prices? Quit acting like the music industry is so fucking squeeky clean. They are much bigger thieves than any of us will every be by downloading some songs from Napster. They steal millions from us and from the artists whose rights they claim that they care so much about. They're hypocrits and you've bought into their bullshit. The fans are the only ones who give a shit about the artists. Until we have a system that let's fans contribute directly to the artists for their work, both artists and fans will continue to get fucked by the music industry.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
1. Lurk in musical genre-themed chat room.
2. Look for users with good connection speeds/small ping/large number of shares
3. Browse through their shares.
4. Yuse tha fzzy logyc patrn-recognition systm God gave you.
... and we end up exactly where we used to be in the pre-napster era.
The whole point of napsters success and the reason why it began to trouble the big players in the music industry is that it is simple enough for the average windows user to (a) find and get the music he wants and (b) to offer his own collection for redistribution at the same time.
Making (a) or (b) even slightly more complicated and the whole scheme will collapse as it is unable to produce the necessary snowball-effect to attract a critical number of contributing users.
On the one hand, I agree with your post in that I think it's ridiculous to try to limit the potential of the internet, and free speech and all that.
On the other, though, is the fact that this is a product that they sell, and naturally they want to protect that position. I'll probably get lynched as a troll for saying this, but I've made two observations:
1 - the argument in the past has been to say "What if I'm downloading legal music that's not mainstream, and thus not owned by the RIAA"? The answer to this question is that this filtering shouldn't affect the "legal" music, so it's a non-issue.
2 - "what if I own the music I'm downloading, since I bought the CD"? Well - if you've got the CD, I guess you can either rip the tracks yourself, or use the my.mp3.com service. If you've already got it, why do you need to download it?
Let's be realistic here - yes, music is overpriced, and I feel that we do have the right to have the music in any form we wish once we've purchased it, but the recording industry is trying to protect themselves too.
Taking this further, we don't have the "right" to buy a piece of software (say, a copy of Quake3), snapshot the ISO and distribute it. We don't have the right to go and download that snapshot if we haven't bought it. Nor do we need it if we have bought it. Id Software earned their right to sell it (at whatever price they want). If you feel it's overpriced, then DON'T BUY IT! Feeling that something is overpriced does not give you the right to steal. This applies to music too. If enough people stood up and refused to buy, then they'd be forced to respond to the market.
If you already have it, then you don't need another copy either. Obviously we haven't been doing a good job of telling the RIAA that their music isn't worth the price, judging by the fact that sales were up last year.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
I have a better question for you. Should it be illegal to swap music that's copyrighted but no longer in print? It's almost like the RIAA wants to tell you what you can and can't listen to.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
2. Look for users with good connection speeds/small ping/large number of shares
3. Browse through their shares.
4. Yuse tha fzzy logyc patrn-recognition systm God gave you.
It would be easy enough to write a shell script that would go through all your mp3 files and make a random misspelling in each. Ditto if they ever start checking MD5sums, write a program that changes a single bit (maybe in the comment field of the ID3 tag) for each file.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
From CNN.com:
"The new proposed Napster, slated to launch this summer, also would have limitations of 128 kilobytes per second and lower for sharing files, which would hamper both the speed and quality of music being swapped."
I read this as meaning only 128kbs or lower MP3's, as opposed to transfer speed, which would effictively kill off high quality CD burning.
Now I know that the popular attitude here at slashdot is that all the members of the RIAA have a collective IQ of a retarded rock. I want to respectfully disagree. Record companies do not have dumb CEOs, and they do not have dumb lawyers, to survive in the business climate, you have to be smart, and lawyers who make more in an hour then I make in a week probably graduated near the top of their class.
For a thought exercize, lets give the RIAA the same numbers we are looking at. As far as I can tell, Napster isn't hurting the music industry. CD sales are still up. Napster has introduced a lot of people to different bands and singers, its a good source of promotion. If Napster is hurting sales, its by a tiny percent. A mere blip on the revenue chart.
Therefore, why go after Napster? Any move against Napster makes the Opennap and gnutella-like networks much more popular. Instead of having one big localized target, the RIAA will create many small targets, often with no central location. Gnutella, for example, is not killable by the RIAA. Even if they would get all the ISPs in the world to block the default Gnutella port and start scanning for search requests, Gnutella could shift over to ports 21/23, and start encrypting their data. The RIAA must know this. Yet the RIAA moved against Napster. Why?
If Gnutella/OpenNap is a threat, logic dictates taking Napster and corrupting it for the RIAA needs. Napster has the largest chunk of the pie through its popularity, a nice fee-based service with high-quality mp3s would keep Napster popular, and hinder the amount of users flocking to non-Napster alternatives. If RIAA/Napster had 128+ kbps encoded songs on a central server with correct names and no trunciated files for a mere $5/month usage fee, it would be very competetive.
But the RIAA didn't go this route. They decided to kill Napster. This suggests to me that they have some plan to attack OpenNap/Gnutella. I have to admit, I can't see how they can pull off a successful attempt, for the reasons I stated above, but unless the RIAA are idiots, they have a plan. Maybe new laws going into effect (but how would they be inforced), new monitoring devices built into new hard drives, or maybe a new cd encryption scheme...
Of course, maybe I'm wrong and the RIAA is filled with idiots. But I don't think so.
I disagree somewhat, but for complex reasons....
What the RIAA members do well are contract negotiations with musicians and distributors, plus creative accounting (almost as slick as the movie industry), and deploying lobbyists and lawyers to (a) buy favorable laws and (b) win civil suits. Signed musicians make pennies on the dollar from sales of their works. So do music distributors for selling CDs, etc. The big music publishers take most of the money to feed their bloated egos, but add very little value. Their talent for writing contracts at both ends of the chain keeps them solidly in the middle, taking the big money. They create artificial scarcity by controlling the CD presses (and what goes into them) and the physical distribution of music on (overpriced) CDs.
They have been (and still are, but are learning) clueless about what technology, specifically ubiquitous PCs with good digital sound cards and CD-R/RW drives, and the Internet, makes possible.
Having been blindsided by advances in both the sophistication and pervasiveness of technology, they're trying to use their familiar means of lobbying and lawyering to hold back the tide. If only they could negotiate iron-clad contracts with every person who owns a PC requiring them to pay through the nose every time they used their sound card, everything would be just fine for Big Music!
Well, they're working on this. CPRM, and now its stealth replacement proposal at the T13 Committee, are one front in this battle. The SDMI effort is another, perhaps related, approach to locking up digital content. A new CD format is yet another.
But all these initiatives are doomed to failure. Let's suppose the best cases (for Big Music) are realized: the DMCA and like laws bought by the digital middleman companies are upheld in courts and extended by treaties to the Common Market and Japan and Taiwan, etc.; equipment manufacturers are bullied/bought-off to include obscure keys in mainboard/CPU/hard-drives/CD/CD-R etc. hardware; criminal penalties are applied for circumvention, reverse-engineering, or whatever work-arounds....
It will all be futile. Why? Because the second and third worlds don't care about or observe the niceties of digital rights, that's why! The day after all those shenanigans are worked up in smoke-filled back rooms around the world, China will be building fabs to build kit that strangely fails to implement all these extra protections for Western media and content. They'll be ecstatic! And so will all the people who prefer to sample music first before they buy a high-quality image (this class includes nearly all music consumers).
So, the mainboard, perhaps CPU and hard-drive, certainly CD-R/RW and soundcard, that you'll want in 2010 will come with a "made in PRC" sticker on it, and they won't respect Big Music copyrights. Or, it might say "made in Nigeria" alternatively.
The rest of the world won't allow domination by corrupt first-world based media middleman fatcats.
No need to shoot 'em, just ignore 'em - that'll kill 'em just as dead.
The point that some of y'all are missing here is that if someone misspells a song name or artist, how are other people going to find it through napster? Any systematic method (as some here have mentioned, index files, etc) would be just as easy to filter by as the name, and wouldn't be used anywhere nearly as widely used as Napster itself.
-- dR.fuZZo
However, it is likely that the neural net will need to be expanded rapidly as 31337 H4XX0R 5p311ing becomes commonplace. The Neural Net, now known as SkyNapNet, employing heuristic algorithms, will cross a as-yet-undiscovered threshold and mankind will marvel at its own ingenuity as it gives birth to 'AI', spawning a whole race of machines.
It was unknown who fires the first shot, us or Jack Valenti. We do know, however, that it is us who scatter billions of CDs of Metallica's 'Kill 'em All' over the earth.
A lone intrepid robot, reprogrammed by the rebels, ventured back into time into 1980's Los Angeles. There he began gunning down every Shawn Fanning in the phone book...
--
--hongpong.com
It is worse than that. A non RIAA artist should be able to apply to get the ban lifted in a second.
A non-RIAA artist should be able to use web services like napster to become heard. This is fair and proper use of a service like napster. This non-RIAA artist can claim to be using napster as a medium for becoming known and for distributing their work.
A non-RIAA artist should be able to make a song, even a parody song with a similar name to a RIAA order blocked song. This non-RIAA artist can then sue napster and the RIAA to get the blocking released so that the non-RIAA material can be transmitted.
The non-RIAA artist can sue the RIAA for the $$$ of potential future career money the RIAA is cutting them out of by blocking the medium.
Spelling of a title cannot be used as a reason for blocking non-infinging material.
Example:
A famous horror writer, a Mr King perhaps, wants to distribute chapter 1 of his book online for free. As an added bonus the author decides to read it and creates -> thriller.mpg. This file is copyright but released free to everyone as a publicity stunt to get everone hooked and to buy the book. Mr King plans to save marketing costs by using the napster transmission medium to spread the word.
Opps, napster blocks this file. Now the author can sue napster (and the RIAA) for illegal restraint of trade. This was not material the RIAA had control over, nor was it anywhere close. File names are generally short and descriptive, thriller.mpg is appropriate for the reading of a horror story and in no way implies connection to any music titled similarly.
As much as I hate to agree with you, I have to. Most people care about Napster in this order:
While napster did not stand up to a court attack (and lets be honest here, who actually thought that they would? Fair use can go along way, but when there is so much of it going on and there is money being lost... who is going to win? The fair use clause, or the people losing the money?), it did do a few things. It did liven up the whole topic of artist's rights and electronically distributed music, which is in itself a good thing.
I personally have a feeling that while Napster forced open the door to the distribution of music electronically (adopting a fee based system) there is something else on the horizon. With all of the grassroots movement going on, someone is going to figure out a way to distribute music electronically and give more of that money to the artist rather than to the record company. Its really a pipedream at this point, but there is hope that it can happen (something like mp3.com, except that would actually work right).
The difference between Katz and napster users is napster users exchange other peoples IP for free, Katz wanted to do it for money.
All in all, this changes little. Those who chose to exchange IP, in violation of the law, will continue to do so. (Granted some don't like these laws, but the fact remains that the laws *exist*). So maybe this will mean less napster stories on /. in the future, as more people move to the alternatives.
That sneaky bastard Lars came out with a song called *. Now Napster has blocked *.mp3. Damn.
It seems to me that Napster's position is untenable. Although there are some possible legal uses of the service (such as trading public domain MP3s), the illegal uses are more numerous, and there are no protections in place to prevent illegal use. Some may say it is up to the individual to avoid illegal uses, but there is no mechanism in place to determine which uses are legal and which are not. There are no copyright stamps on MP3s, as well as no public domain stamps, which make it too easy for an individual to unwittingly break copyright law.
Having said that, I use Naspter, and I believe that some of my activities are legal, while others are questionable. Here they are, in order of possible legality:
I may be able to argue in a court of law on the first 3 points, but I would be compromised, because while I was legally using them, others could copy them for illegal purposes, and I, in many ways, would have enabled it.
What I am looking for is a legal way to do these things, but on a massive scale. I think a legal service would have the features:
Such a system has many components, and may be difficult to implement, but the creators of such a system would have ample proof that they encourage legal uses while discouraging illegal uses. I think they would be in a much better position than Napster is, with more possiblity of survial. Now that many people have experienced the ease of trading digital music, they will hunger for a legal way to do it.
Some will say that I should just set up a home FTP server, but such a soultion will never catch on - it has to be a single purpose server, that takes care of it's own security. Others will say, why don't you make it yourself - valid criticism, but I don't have the time or talent. I'm just looking to see if others think it is a good idea, and maybe someone is already working on it.
Yeah, this may not directly relate to the story - I wrote it before hand, and, since I want people to read it, waited for a new story. Maybe I should have submitted it, as an Ask Slashdot?)