Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Looks To Stop KaZaA, Morpheus & Grokster
John Hampton writes: "The RIAA is going to try to sue KaZaZ, Morpheus and Grokster, according to this story. Internal memos from within the RIAA outline the record label's findings and strategy going ahead. Great story. Hilary Rosen begging executives to talk about the issue and the RIAA issuing the lamest statement ever. From DotcomScoop.com."
As far as I know all these three services use one common engine by that makes it possible for them to interoperate with each other. Basically, a user who is using Morpheus can download files shared by KaZaA and vice versa.
Because of this, at present, these three together form the largest network (far larger than napster or even gnutella's break-brick-block kind of network).
As fasttrack says, this architecture is distributed, self-organising network. Neither search requests nor actual downloads pass through any central server. The network is multi-layered, so that more powerful computers get to become search hubs ("SuperNodes"). Any client may become a SuperNode, if it meets the criteria of processing power, bandwidth and latency. Network management is 100% automatic - SuperNodes appear and disappear according to demand.
Basically, unstoppable!....You can stop the development of the code, and the program, but not the existing network. Just like gnutella.
For sure, they are RIAA, MPAA and the software industry's largest and the hardest to destroy enemies because they also allow users to share movies and programs.
Now that's what they say, let's see what the reality is!
ZDNet story
CNet story
Interesting story at BBC News
:wq!
One thing that interests me, however, is that KaZaA is much more than audio file sharing. You can download audio, video, software, images and documents, and only one of those categories applies to the RIAA. I suppose it only takes one category, but it's interesting that no other companies or industry representives have become involved (yet, to my knowledge). I wouldn't be too amazed if the MPAA joined the fray, not to mention numerous software companies.
The thing is...how long can this go on for? Someone sets up a filesharing network. The RIAA sues them, bringing their vast financial resources to bear, which means that any other resources they require can be bought. They close-mindedly bring about the destruction or complete alteration of the network, not taking into account many technicalities like the way that Napster was demonstrated to actually boost CD sales, and that the server owners should not be held responsible for the traffic on their network, just as ISPs cannot. But in this time, another network has popped up in its place. In fact, several networks.
How long can this continue? Surely the RIAA must realise that it is a futile proposition (at present) to attempt to take down every filesharing network that may allow access to copyrighted material? I suppose that's why they are attempting to pass more and more fascist laws, and are encouraging other countries to do the same, in order to maintain their somewhat archaically-based real-world manopoly. Surely there must be an easier way for record companies etc to protect their copyrights, within reason, but to allow filesharing like this within reason as well (and I'm not specifically thinking of subscription). It seems that the RIAA, MPAA et al, rather than go with the flow and try new avenues of profit on the net, are attempting to stand firm in a present system that is rapidly becoming a part of the past. I am reminded of the SG-1 Archive, which was recently featured in Showtime's magazine (since Showtime produces Stargate SG-1), where the site was apparently hailed as a source of information on the series, and yet a couple of weeks later the webmaster received a CAD letter from the MPAA and was forced to remove the episodes available for download. This would not be a problem, legally speaking, if Showtime had objected to the site; but they hadn't. They had praised it. Apparently the MPAA is simply doing the rounds, attempting to scare everyone into submission, and sue those who are brazen enough to resist, despite the wishes of the people producing the actual material (who the Stargate SG-1 copyrights actually belong to I am not entirely certain, but I believe it is MGM/Showtime).
Having said that, I fearlessly and without disclaimer (partly because slashdot thinks my IP is a 203.97 subnet, which it's not) acknowledge that all the software and mp3s on my computer are pirated, and that I feel little remorse. Being what I hope is a morally upright person, this disturbs me somewhat, but when I see the sort of things that Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA etc do, and the tactics they resort to, I seem to feel a lot better. As a writer, I put a certain value on intellectual property, and I also accept that people will copy and distribute my work illegally. This doesn't bug me particularly, partly because I'd be a hypocrite if it did, and partly because people will still buy my work, despite those who pirate it. When I look at how bloated with money MS, RIAA etc are, I hardly feel sympathic.
disclaimer My ideas and arguments are subject to minor alteration depending on circumstances, and are probably slightly bigoted and not as balanced as those that I normally produce. Taken completely objectively, you may well be able to tear holes in them. If you feel the inclination to do this I would be appreciative, as I am still formulating my own opinions in this matter; however, I ask that you don't flame simply for the sake of flaming...it doesn't tend to be conducive to constructive conversation.
A word can paint a thousand pictures
FastTrack, a Netherlands-based company
p in c=+next+%3E%3E&last_str=fasttrack&page=0
According to the article FastTrack is supposed to be in the Netherlands... It definitely is not. Although there is a site called FastTrack.NL it has nothing to do with the software used by Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus.
According to the whois info it is a Chattsworth CA based company.
http://www.whois.net/search.cgi2?str=fasttrack&
Look at entry #40.
And Congress has thrown law enforcement behind the copyright holders in an act passed in 1998 after the David LaMacchia case (an MIT student who offered a central repository for the exchange of software). You don't have to upload software personally or benefit in any way from the exchange of software--you go to jail for providing a means of exchange. I don't think I'm giving away any secret here; while the law was probably passed at the behest of the software industry, it must be known to the recording industry too.
You are correct. They are using a new algorithm, but it requires a connect to the main server to get the key. Either that or the executable has been told that if the registration server is not there dont connect (which seems dumb). This was determined because one of the developers firewalled his Windows computer's access to the main server but nothing else and it could not connect to any cached hosts like it used to.
Every so often, something happens that changes the rules by which the world, and in particular the business world, operates.
A few personal examples. My grandfather was a professional signwriter. Not so long ago if you needed a sign above a shop, for instance, you used to have to go to a signwriter, who would labouriously paint it by hand. There are of course very few of them about nowadays because there are so many other ways to create signs. A perverse way of looking at this would be to think that the signwriter profession has been 'robbed' of its rightful earnings because bad technology has made them irrelevant.
My grandmother was a double entry book-keeper, a kind of accountant's clerk. She would labourously enter figures by hand into big books, do sums and checks to make sure everything was correct. My grandmothers profession has also been 'robbed' of its earnings because it has been made irrelevant by those bad computers.
The men and women of the record companies have made money in the past by promoting music, making copies of it and distributing it. Their profession has been made irrelevant because the Internet means that anyone can promote, copy and distribute music at virtually zero cost. They are desperately trying to stop this happening, but being a record company is becoming just as irrelevant as being a signwriter or double entry book-keeper.
In the short-term the record companies will use their financial power to get bad laws passed which will slow this natural development down. But in the longer term, sorry folks, but you're history.
One of the interesting questions asked about the copyright debate surrounding p2p is that if it continues, how will the artist make money?
The apologists for the RIAA state that the only way to make money is to provide legal protection to the artists to guarantee their rights to a living. The interesting thing about special protection is that for every group that it descriminates in favor of, it also must descriminate in disfavor of everyone else.
The DMCA and bills currently before congress are examples of political rent seeking. The RIAA has found that its current model is threatened in a free economy, and that it can find favoritism through legislation giving it and its interest legal protection. It is, in fact, a much more economically efficient model for the RIAA than actually struggling through the tumult of a free market. However, it also violates the basic tenet of a free market: Competition is good.
In a free market economy, those industries that are most efficient in producing and providing goods and services tend to succeed, while those that are not tend to fail. This insures reasonable distribution and pricing. If there is demand for a product, a free market economy will tend to meet this demand, and at a reasonable price.
The RIAA realizes that they are not the most efficient means of distribution, and are not as competitive as other services. They are in the process of attempting to subvert the tenets of the free market to insure their continued existence. Their success will not be the first example of political rent seeking, but will provide precedent for future political rent seeking by other industries threatened by the changes of digital technology and the network age.
If there is a demand for music, people will create it. They will also find a way to make money on it. To attempt to delineate here the ways in which they might accomplish this a disservice to entreprenuers everywhere. I make no claims as to being the most imaginitive in the ways in which to make money in a free market economy. I have not made a fortune in business, so to lay claims as to having the answer would be questionable at best.
Money can be made on any product or service for which there is a demand. History shows us this. However, until competition and market forces are reestablished in the music industry, the incentive for solutions to be found are very very small. Why would capital and imigination be applied to an industry in which the RIAA has a government mandated protected interest? It is easier to make money elsewhere.
zor_prime
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain