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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
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
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?)