Kazaa to be shut down?

darkpriest writes "According to this article on The Register, the file sharing software KazaA has been ordered to cease copyright infringment. They have two weeks to comply with the Judges ruling or face a penalty of $40,000 a day." CD: We've gotten a number of submissions about this, I had no idea Kazaa was this popular (must be all those a's in their name). I bet anyday that the RIAA will sue cisco for making routers that could be used to infringe.

Comments

Popularity

[spectral]

Actually, according to download.com, kazaa and morpheus (which are the same program/network, really..) are the top two most downloaded programs.. Which makes me wonder if it's just Kazaa that was ordered to cease and desist, or does musiccity have to comply also? It's the same p2p network, with decentralized servers (I believe? I don't know all that much about their network), unlike napster's centrally controlled server farms.

Re:Popularity

[nsample]

We did a study in the P2P group at Stanford two months ago... with pretty interesting results. Kazaa (as monitored through a Morpheus client gateway) consistently topped out at over 50 terabytes of data and peeked at just over 1.1 million active clients. It's becoming truly ubiquitous, and it's growth rates (in terms of both users and size) indicate that they will be the unquestionable king of P2P in short order.

It's pretty clear that it's a big part of the reason they're being targetted by the BSA, RIAA, etc. currently... I can only hope that University research into these things doesn't fuel the corporate interests backing the anti-P2P movement.

Until we get universal television stations...

[bonoboy]

This will just keep happening.

Ok, maybe people will always want something for free, but the Internet file-sharing phenomenon is the single best argument for having simultaneous worldwide release of as many products as possible.

Now, to you North Americans, this isn't such a big issue, and you've probably never given it much thought. But to a native New Zealander and resident Australian like myself, who knows the pain of waiting a year or two to see episodes of Buffy (etc, etc, etc) that you could easily download for free, it is of paramount importance!

And another thing: a buddy of mine is a technical director on LOTR, and it's supposed to be a simultaneous worldwide release on December 19th. How is it then, that in Austalia, it's being released on December 26th? Was he wrong, or is the Australian Motion Picture League of Bastards screwing us again??

Re:Until we get universal television stations...

[Sloppy]

And another thing: a buddy of mine is a technical director on LOTR, and it's supposed to be a simultaneous worldwide release on December 19th. How is it then, that in Austalia, it's being released on December 26th?

That sucks! By the time you get to see it on the 26th, you'll have been exposed to a week's worth of spoilers from the internet, so you'll already know that Sauron Did It.

Re:Until we get universal television stations...

[hughk]

And another thing: a buddy of mine is a technical director on LOTR, and it's supposed to be a simultaneous worldwide release on December 19th. How is it then, that in Austalia, it's being released on December 26th? Was he wrong, or is the Australian Motion Picture League of Bastards screwing us again??

Perhaps this is to allow time for translation and dubbing!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

Re:Until we get universal television stations...

[mpe]

Ok, maybe people will always want something for free, but the Internet file-sharing phenomenon is the single best argument for having simultaneous worldwide release of as many products as possible.

What you are effectivly arging for would be a consumer/retailer "globalisation". Which would also do away with the concept of "grey imports", things such as DVD region coding and other ways in which large multinationals attempt to divide up the market (when it suits them.)

Now, to you North Americans, this isn't such a big issue, and you've probably never given it much thought. But to a native New Zealander and resident Australian like myself, who knows the pain of waiting a year or two to see episodes of Buffy (etc, etc, etc) that you could easily download for free, it is of paramount importance!

There appear to be two issues here. The first is an apparent requirement for the first showing to be in North America in many cases (more often the US than Canada dispite a lot of programme production taking place in Canada.) The other is that series are shown in an utterly strange sequence in North America. Such that if every series started showing at the same time worldwide it would be people from the US and Canada who would be clammering to download episodes they wouldn't get to see for a while on TV. Or youd have the rest of the world being showr series North American style which viewers in the rest of the world simply will not accept.
Effectivly we have a case of trying to make new technology emulate the limitations of the old way of doing things. Because the industry does not want to reconsider their business models.

Re:Until we get universal television stations...

[Rogerborg]

• LOTR, and it's supposed to be a simultaneous worldwide release on December 19th. How is it then, that in Austalia, it's being released on December 26th? Was he wrong

Release dates. Starting on Mexico on 7th December, UK on the 10th, the bulk on the 19th, 20th and 21st, then Australia on the 26th and the rest up to the 18th of January 2002, with Japan bringing up the read in March 2002.

Yes, that still blows chunks, but it's getting better. Much better. I recall SW:E1:TPM was supposed to be a worldwide release, but the US distributors nixed that to protect their markets (theatre, video sales and rentals) from pirate imports. It was futile, as VCD's (hard copies and down DSL and cable lines) of Phantom Menace came in from the far east almost immediately after launch. As this is a much tighter schedule, I wonder if maybe, just maybe, it's an admission that the concept of staggered releases is now pointless, and we're in a truly global market.

Re:Until we get universal television stations...

[ShieldWolf]

>The first is an apparent requirement for the first showing to be in North America in many cases (more often the US than Canada dispite a lot of programme production taking place in Canada.)

There are NO programs or movies that appear in the US first then Canada, we ALWAYS get everything at the same time. We USED to get movies like a week or two later but that was like 20 years ago.

-Shieldwolf

Re:Until we get universal television stations...

[fobbman]

Damn, does Mexico have on-screen English translations? I know enough Spanish to get me a prostitute and you KNOW where the first LOTR camcorder-shot version on KaZaa is going to come from.

Re:Until we get universal television stations...

[grub]

Nonsense!
Canadian television is usually years ahead of the US showings.
I don't think The Beachcombers or Mr. Dressup have even made their premieres there! :)

eyepatch department?

[Have Blue]

Sorry, chrisd, it is piracy unless you own the originals.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Accelerated Joe]

Sorry, chrisd, it is piracy unless you own the originals.

In this one specific area, I definitely agree with Richard Stallman. Piracy is a marketing word, with many connotations. I wish the community would use terms more like "unauthorized copying" or "illegal copies". Even plagiarism sounds better than piracy, semantically. The english language can in its current form duplicate many of the worst features of doublespeak.

Re:eyepatch department?

[WildBeast]

Find them a website which allows them to purchase music and download them instantly online in MP3 or WMA format and I'm sure many will stop the piracy.

Unfortunately, you won't be able to, the RIAA doesn't want to give us that much convenience.

Re:eyepatch department?

[mlc]

Even plagiarism sounds better than piracy, semantically.

Plagarism is totally different than "piracy". Plagarism is when you pass off someone else's work as your own. It is possible, then, to commit plagarism (which is not, AFAIK, illegal, at least in general) on a Free work, if you claim that, e.g., you wrote Emacs. This doesn't take away from the fact that you are entirely within your rights to distribute Emacs. However, it is illegal to distribute copies of MS Word, even if you acknowledge that MS wrote it.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Trepidity]

Try this one.

Unfortunately for your prediction, they sell very few mp3s - the free sample mp3s are the only popular section of their site, and people download the rest from filesharing services.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Trepidity]

Uhh, simply because it doesn't sell a certain narrow range of music doesn't mean it's not a "serious" online shop. How about the following: Creedence Clearwater Revival, They Might Be Giants, Bad Religion, Rancid, NOFX, Elvis Costello, Iggy Pop.

The point is that they have a good deal of artists who are fairly popular (i.e. regularly have platinum-selling albums). And they still sell virtually no mp3s. Why? Because people download them for free.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Trepidity]

I don't know where the discussion of "top 100" came from. I was simply mentioning that these are popular bands who nonetheless cannot sell their mp3s online. I did not say they were the 100 most popular bands in the world.

As for selling the CD, what you want then is simply what cheap-cds.com does - a CD store that lets you access mp3s online (for most albums) after you purchase them. They haven't reported any significant increase in sales after starting the service though.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Elbereth]

Unfortunately, calling people out on their arguments doesn't really do any good on Slashdot. People don't want easy accessible music; they want free music. They don't want lower prices; they want to get something for nothing.

If you're going to pirate something, at least admit to yourself that you're ripping off someone, not a victimized consumer standing up his rights.

Gimme a break.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Trepidity]

I suppose.

It's a fairly well-known site in the punk community, as it's run by Epitaph Records (Offspring, Rancid, NOFX, Bad Religion, Guttermouth, etc.), and sells mp3s of all the Epitaph bands (plus some others). I was just bringing it up as an example of one record label that has tried what you suggest (and an RIAA-member label, no less).

Re:eyepatch department?

[imrdkl]

the RIAA doesn't want to give us that much convenience

Sure they do. They just wanna find a way to mark your copy with your permanent signature. Then they'll sell you anything you want.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Rogerborg]

• If you're going to pirate something, at least admit to yourself that you're ripping off someone

And there's the problem. To you, it's utterly clear that this is "ripping off", by which I assume you mean theft, that I am depriving someone of something which they have or to which you think they are absolutely entitled. You believe that I should see it this way, and that I am merely fooling myself, or pretending to fool myself otherwise.

The problem is, you're wrong on all counts. You're wrong that I'm fooling myself, and you're wrong that it's theft. I'll just assert that latter one, because that's all you did. It's clearly obvious to me that if the copyright owner (a music company, not an artist) failed to persuade me to pay the amount that they demand for access to the work on their terms, then they've already lost the sale, and so there's nothing left for me to deprive them of.

So you can sit there wagging your finger sternly and saying "This is right, this is wrong, that's the way it's always been, that's the way it always will be" while a new generation of music listeners sniggers quietly behind their hands - or laughs out loud at you - and gets on with doing what people have really always done, which is to redefine both morality and legality by the weight of their actions and opinions.

Re:eyepatch department?

[blibbleblobble]

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it...

Quoted from

Re:eyepatch department?

[elflord]

And there's the problem. To you, it's utterly clear that this is "ripping off", by which I assume you mean theft, that I am depriving someone of something which they have or to which you think they are absolutely entitled. You believe that I should see it this way, and that I am merely fooling myself, or pretending to fool myself otherwise.

The real issue here is, how should authors of creative works be compensated ? The advocates of Napster appear to believe that they are entitled to free entertainment, and that no-one is morally obliged to compensate authors whose works they benefit from. Authors, they believe, should work without compensation. However, most of these leeches would fiercely object if their employer decided that they shouldn't be compensated for their labor.

The problem is, you're wrong on all counts. You're wrong that I'm fooling myself, and you're wrong that it's theft. I'll just assert that latter one, because that's all you did.

No he didn't. You asserted it on his behalf.

while a new generation of music listeners sniggers quietly behind their hands - or laughs out loud at you - and gets on with doing what people have really always done, which is to redefine both morality and legality by the weight of their actions and opinions.

No, they are defining "morality" by retroactively inventing half-assed rationalisations for immoral actions, and they're not the first people to do it.

Re:eyepatch department?

[tb3]

Piracy is an act of robbery committed at sea. Any other use of the word is an attempt to make a minor crime sound a lot more heinous than it really is. Thank the spin doctors at the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA for this wonderful use of language.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Yosho]

I don't know what version of the English language you're speaking, but according to Merriam-Webster, piracy can be defined as "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright." Just because you can't accept a definition doesn't mean that's not the way it is.

Re:eyepatch department?

[elflord]

Morality and law alike are determined by the weight of the people. If enough people think that file sharing is a moral thing to do, then it will become so.

This is essentially the moral relativists manifesto. Suffice it to say that the above is a contentious claim, and I'll leave the debate to the philosophers. A problem with the claim, btw, is that it ignores the fact that something that may be seen as "morally correct" for a short amount of time may well be condemned for years to follow, IOW, you're ignoring the weight of history.

The current entertainment buissness model will collapse.

If this is the case, it will be replaced by a different business model. And any viable business model involves money, in particular, it involves paying people who work. Shortsighted attempts to cheat authors out of compensation are not a "business model".

There is no "fooling yourself" in matters or morality - it's a purely personal decision.

Sure there is. If someones morality is inconsistent, it's ill-formed, in some sense. A hypocrite is not the moral equal of a non-hypocrite.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Greg W.]

OK, I'll take the bait.

People don't want easy accessible music; they want free music.

Of course we do. Who wouldn't want free stuff?

But there's more to it than that. A lot more.

First of all, we want to be able to hear the music in the first place. Have you tried listening to commercial radio lately? For how long? The simple fact is that if we want to hear something that's been mentioned by a friend (either in "real life" or online), we can't get it from the radio. Radio doesn't play anything that anyone would ever recommend to anyone else. It's simply a marketing arm of the record companies trying to increase sales of the Pop-Star-of-The-Month.

Let's say I tell you how much I loved Tori Amos's third album Boys For Pele. Are you going to rush to the store and buy it based on that recommendation? Probably not. You'll at least want to hear it for yourself first.

So what choices does that give you?

1. Turn on the local alternative radio station and wait for them to play Tori. Hah! The last time I heard anything I'd describe as "alternative" on the radio was about 5 years ago. There aren't any "alternative" format stations in Cleveland now. There's one station that plays Limp Bizkit rap/metal, but nothing that plays "adult alternative" like Tori or REM. Nothing.
2. Turn on MTV and wait for them to play Tori. A-HAHAHA! See above. And below.
3. Turn on M2. What M2? Where is it on my cable channel list? Oh yeah, it's not there. If MTV wanted me to hear music, they'd play some fucking music instead of "reality shows". They wouldn't have moved all the music to a different channel that nobody actually gets. They'd just play music on MTV, and then put all the crap TV on the other station. But that's not what they want to do -- they don't want to play music any more. They want to show crap, because they think crap generates more money for them. Maybe it does -- but it's sure as hell not my money that they're pulling in.
4. Find samples on CDNOW or some other online vendor. This is sometimes feasible, but your chances of getting a sample of decent length (e.g., a whole song) are pretty low. The samples also tend to be low quality recordings. But the worst problem here is that they tend to be shackled in one or more ways. They may require you to submit an email address so they can spam you. Or they may require you to turn on Javascript and cookies. Or they may disallow access from non-Microsoft web browsers. Or they may release samples only in Microsoft/Real media formats (Real Audio, WMA, etc.). So you can't play them on Linux, even if you can download them in the first place, which is problematic.
5. You could buy a CD, listen to it a few times, and then return it to the store. Most stores don't let you do this. And even if you did, you're costing the store money for your own convenience. It's basically dishonest, and real people will be hurt by your actions. That makes it wrong.
6. You could find a copy of the song on an independent promotional site (what you're calling "pirate") and download it and listen to it. The problem here is that you might not find the song, and you might not be able to get it quickly (independent music promoters tend to have low-bandwidth upstream Internet links, like cable modems) or reliably (cable modems, dial-up). The ripping or the encoding (or both) might be flawed, or low-quality.
7. You could find a friend in meatspace who has the CD, and ask him or her to let you borrow it, or to make a copy for you. This has the obvious drawback that it only works if you happen to know someone who has the CD.

Which of these have the greatest likelihood of letting you hear the music? Probably the last two. Which have the greatest likelihood of leading to a monetary transaction between you and the artist? Well, none of them, so let me rephrase. Which of them have the greatest chance of getting you to send money to the record company who, in theory, passes money on to the artist? Probably #5: if you buy a CD from the store, all you have to do to "make a purchase" is keep it instead of returning it. But #6 is also good: if you like that Ogg file you downloaded, you might decide to buy a CD.

You sure as hell aren't going to be enriching the artist or the record company if you follow any of the first 3 models. And #4 is potluck, and your odds have gotten worse over time. #7 will depend on whether you got a cassette copy from your friend, or a burned CD, or whether you just borrowed his CD with the intention of returning it. If you got a burned CD copy, you may just keep that instead of buying your own.

So by my reckoning, downloading "pirate" music is at least the second-best money-making promotional model there is (or possibly the best) for the type of music that isn't played on commercial radio and MTV.

And that's at least 99% of all the music in the world.

If you're going to pirate something, at least admit to yourself that you're ripping off someone, not a victimized consumer standing up his rights.

If you're going to troll slashdot users, at least admit to yourself that you're a tool of the record companies and their hired public relations psychologists. And that you're helping them rip off 99% of the musicians in the world by systematically destroying all but the 1% who achieve "Star" status and therefore simply die poor instead of flat broke.

If you'd rather help artists, then donate money directly to them, or buy CDs straight from the artists instead of through the record companies (for the artists who are able to do that).

Re:eyepatch department?

[tb3]

I think that, in this case, Merriam-Webster is cocked-up. They've taken the subversion of the word, and written it into law. Piracy was around long before copyright. A conspiracy theorist would suggest that M-W is controlled by the BSA et al, who are re-writing the dictionay to suit themselves.

I took my definition from Dictionary.com, BTW.

Re:eyepatch department?

[ichimunki]

It would be difficult to claim that you wrote emacs without violating the GPL by removing the copyright notices which state that it is copyright restricted by the Free Software Foundation. And if you do not adhere to the GPL, you have no basis upon which to distribute emacs legally.

However, for public domain works, you may be correct, there may no direct legal prohibitions, except that in many cases you will be committing some sort of fraud or contract violation. Examples would include: submitting a government report as an original article (USA federal gov't works are not copyrightable) to a magazine who paid you for the work and schoolwork where you have an agreement with the school that your work is your own original creation. I think plagiarism is therefore legally difficult to do and not have broken some law or contract and I would advise against it on those grounds alone. :)

But I want to also chime in on the "this ain't no piracy" side of this semantic squabble. This would be a case of unauthorized duplication and distribution. It does not constitute "theft of intellectual property" or "piracy". It constitutes a violation of a shared ethical belief that the creator of a work is the one who gets to decide how and when a work will be distributed and under what terms for a set period of time-- as set forth in law, and probably "right" in the minds of most Americans.

Re:eyepatch department?

[cavemanf16]

Why must I say this over and over on this site? Copying mp3's is NOT PIRACY! Have you ever listened to the radio? Have you ever borrowed a friend's CD? Ever had a friend make a cassette tape for you with all the cool songs you don't have?!

mp3's are just a much better format. There is absolutley NO WAY! that anyone can come up with ANY valid statistics proving exactly how much money they might have potentially lost to people sending mp3's across the internet. And please show me one single person who has downloaded high quality mp3's, burned them to LOTS of CD's, and then sold those CD's under their own name or psuedo-name, claiming they created the music instead of the original artist. You won't find ANYONE!!! That's copyright infringement, and P2P file sharing is not producing anything close to this situation.

The last two CD's I've bought (just as an example of why mp3 sharing on P2P programs is great), were bought by me because I liked the mp3's by those bands that I found on P2P systems! And YES, I previously downloaded the entire CD in high quality mp3 format (good enough to be indistinguishable from CD quality by many people - 192kbps), listened to every song, and then went and purchased the CD for full price at a national retail outlet. Damnit! When will you people realize that mp3 file sharing is making the recording industry MORE money than before, and yet they're trying to shut it down!?!

Re:eyepatch department?

[Trepidity]

Morality and law alike are determined by the weight of the people.

So slavery was moral, and the opposition of the South to the civil rights movement was likewise moral?

Re:eyepatch department?

[Trepidity]

I agree, that's the major thing I see wrong with their service. If I actually pay for an mp3 at prices even 50% of a physical album, I expect to get near CD quality. And I certainly expect my paid mp3 to be at least as good quality as the free ones I can get off filesharing services. Now unless they give WAVs there will always be someone unsatisfied, but they can at least do better than 128kbps. 320kbps, 256kbps, even 192kbps, or perhaps LAME VBR at a high setting would all be acceptable to me.

Re:eyepatch department?

[fobbman]

8. Or you can go to Launch.com and listen there. For free.

Re:eyepatch department?

[StormyMonday]

The real issue here is, how should authors of creative works be compensated ?

No. The real issue is "how should the owners of creative works be compensated?". Music nowadays (at least for the big labels) is "work for hire". The musicians have no ownership rights to the music. Anything that goes to the creators is a matter of contract negotiations, and, I suspect, creative accounting. (The average musician is no more an accountant than the average accountant is a musician.)

None of the money that you pay for a CD goes directly to the musicians. (Unless, of course, you listen to indie bands, like sensible people.) It goes to the label, who determines how much the band gets.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Harmast]

It's clearly obvious to me that if the copyright owner (a music company, not an artist) failed to persuade me to pay the amount that they demand for access to the work on their terms, then they've already lost the sale, and so there's nothing left for me to deprive them of.

If you weren't interested in paying for it, why did you download it?

Is your answer "oh, well at free it's worth having"...well, it isn't being offered for free...it was being offered for a price you didn't like. Just because it's not physical property doesn't mean you aren't imposing costs by just taking it.

I dislike the RIAA and the big six as much as anyone who isn't a musician himself, mainly 'cause I see what my musician friends go through. But attitudes like yours actually boost the RIAA in the end.

"Why?" you ask. Simple, regardless of how music is recorded and sold it costs money. Now, let's look at an artist who wants to use the Internet to distribute his music without a major label/distributor involved. He sets up a website with paid downloads, say a dollar song and $8 for his 10 song CD (a 20% discount). All of that costs money and he based his prices on his expected sales (based on the turnout at shows and the size of his mailing list) so that it covers his recording and hosting costs and he makes minimum wage on the 100 hours he invested in this album if he gets expected sales.

Now you're on the band's list and like them but say "$8 is too much" so you just download it off a file service. Enough people do that so he only gets half the sales he expected and loses money. A couple of releases like that and the new business model breaks down.

There are a lot of reasons to like electronic distribute and such but in the end "Downloading it for free because it's too expensive" isn't one. It's just a rationalization for being cheap.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Harmast]

9. List to non-comerical radio and hear A LOT more variety than you ever do (admittedly this varies by location). Seriously, I listen to three local college stations 90% of the time (and all of the music radio I listen to) and the variety is incredible. It's out there if you look. Many broadcast on the web as well (WHUS is my biggest source of radio anymore both in the car via airwaves and at home via broadband).

10. Listen to Spinner's channels. I can say, without any irony, that some of their channels play tons of current music you'll never hear on commerical radio, although you'll be genre restricted by the channels you choose (that doesn't bother me...I found 9&10 based on the fact that finding gothic and industrial music radio ain't easy).

11. Borrow your friend's CD or listen to it at his place if you want to verify his recommendation.

While I agree that downloaded music is a great marketing tool and that I used Napster for it I cannot help shake the feeling that a majority of the people I've encountered who argue for it aren't try before you buy, but just "free swag" type. YMMV.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Jeremi]

The current entertainment buissness model will collapse.

If this is the case, it will be replaced by a different business model.

What makes you so sure? Maybe there is no workable replacement business model.

And any viable business model involves money, in particular, it involves paying people who work

Why should music be a business? It wasn't a business for the last couple of millenia, only the last century or so. I for one would have no qualms with popular culture becoming a not-for-profit enterprise again.

Re:eyepatch department?

[krlynch]

Why should music be a business? It wasn't a business for the last couple of millenia, only the last century or so.

Actually, I think that you are dead wrong about this... there has been a "music business" for millenia: think travelling minstrels, court musicians, instrument makers, church choirs and organists, etc. In fact, except for singing, it is only a relatively recent (last two centuries) innovation that "ordinary people" could make music (read, instrumental music), because it has only been in that time that anyone had "disposable income" that could be spent/bartered on leisure or pleasure (surely there were exceptions, Roman legionaires, diletant princes and the clergy in the middle ages, ancient chinese courtesans, etc, but they were in the unimaginably small minority). For most of recorded history, the only people "making music" were those paid and trained to do it, and the only people listening to that music were the ones paying for it; the "business of music" has been a real honest to god business for all of recorded history, not just a business of the last century....

Re:eyepatch department?

[tb3]

Well, #2 seems to refer to 'software piracy' which is the term I have a problem with in the first place. You are correct in pointing out that it has been accepted into common usage, but that doesn't make it right. I don't agree with twisting a word to describe something completely different, and you must concede that 'software piracy' and 'piracy on the high seas' have nothing in common.

As for your hair-splitting analyis of 'cocked-up', try a dictionary of english (british) slang :)

Re:eyepatch department?

[krlynch]

I think that, in this case, Merriam-Webster is cocked-up. They've taken the subversion of the word, and written it into law.

Well, no, they haven't. Piracy as the "appropriation or reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority" (OED), also known as "Literary Piracy" has been around in the language since nearly the birth of the concept of copyright and patents. The first use in print appeared in 1771: LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 "They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition."

As an aside, the first use of "piracy" in an english document appears to date to the early 15th century, 1419, while "pirate" first appears about thirty years earlier, 1387. Hence, "piracy" to mean expropriation of literary or artistic works has been in use for nearly half the length of time that the word has been in documented use in the language itself. Hardly a perversion that has been recently "blessed" by the dictionary makers.

Re:eyepatch department?

[elflord]

Actually, I think the real issue is, should the authors of creative works be compensated at all? The concensus appears to be 'no'.

at least among the slashdot monkeys, this is the consensus. Shows how much these people really value creativity, doesn't it ?

So either you will create art because you love it, or you won't create art at all.

One could make the same argument for any occupation that's enjoyable. Why should we pay academics, computer programmers and doctors ? If these people aren't doing it for love, perhaps they shouldn't be doing it. Perhaps we should only pay people who do unpleasent work, such as garbage collectors.

The proposition that people in occupations where someone who is genuinely interested in their job is more likely to succeed or occupations that are considered "fun" should not be rewarded is not only ludicrous, it is in complete opposition to the principles our economic systems are founded upon.

Re:eyepatch department?

[Doomdark]

Well, for what it's worth, I DO want more easily accessible music download, I DO want reasonable prices, I AM willing to pay the fees, and I am NOT just whining to be able to do illegal copies without paying.

Problem is, I, like everyone and their dog (including whine snot-nosed freeloaders who are after free stuff... but not only them) are ready to point out, industry's cut'n paste answer is pretty much "NO CAN DO". They have never even tried making things more accessible, or reducing overhead handling costs (using net downloads etc), which should lead to lower prices. No. Industry really only wants business as usual; and if they are not Mafia, they are at least the guys with eyepatches.

Perhaps you are just a whining "pirate" who wants everything for free, but don't go generalizing that to everyone around. Why is it that issues like this always eventually get to this boring black-and-white polarization thing?

Re:eyepatch department?

[AME]

Piracy is a marketing word, with many connotations. I wish the community would use terms more like...

Right. I'll stop using this colloquialism as soon as the bulk of GPL enthusiasts stop talking about software being hijacked.

Re:eyepatch department?

[AME]

How is it that mp3's misinformative, opinionated tripe expressing a locally popular idea gets a (+5 Informative), while your researched, thoughtful comment expressing compelling evidence of an unpopular fact receives no moderation?

Oh yeah, this is Slashdot. Carry on.

more info...

[thanq]

There is a little bit more information about it on cnet:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8022666.html? tag=mn_hd

although it does not contain too many facts beyond the actual case and the judgement.

Distributors aren't responsible for content, no??

[Djere]

I seem to recall the music industry railing pretty hard against being held responsible for artists' content. They just distribute content, they're not responsible for filtering it to make sure nothing bad is in there.

Of course, the difference is that music is protected speech, but from a logical standpoint, it's a pretty ... unusual. Of course, thinking that our laws should have some kind of logic to them is a sure path to madness.

-djere
"Where subtlety fails us, we must simply resort to cream pies."

Re:Not decentralized?

[DarkZero]

It's mostly decentralized (I believe there are some moderately large servers hosted by the program's creators that handle a lot of traffic), but they're identifiable. As long as there's someone for the RIAA to tell, "Stop making new versions of this program, and try to get rid of what's already there or you'll go to jail/be fined into poverty!", these services can be stopped. What we really need is for someone to make a P2P program anonymously and then get it to download.com or something without EVER letting their name be known. When that happens (coupled with a decentralized network, of course), we'll have a truly immortal form of P2P.

Xolox also down

[Anonymous Coward]

Xolox was probably my favorite, and now it has this message upon startup:

Dear XoloX-user,
Taking into account the latest law suits against p2p clients based on Fasttrack-technology (such as Kazaa), we
have decided to discontinue XoloX. As of the 1st of december, XoloX will be shut down and removed from
distribution sites. We hope everybody has enjoyed XoloX as long as it has been around and we want to use this
opportunity to thank everybody who made a contribution to its development. These last few days will give you
some time to finish your downloads and we advise you not to start new transfers. If you want to migrate to
another p2p client we advise you to visit the Zeropaid website (www.zeropaid.com) for orientation.
Thanks again and goodbye!
--Team XoloX--
Comments or suggestions? Please use info@xolox.nl

Re:Xolox also down

[jonathan_ingram]

It's not too bad... Xolox was only a Gnutella client, after all. Gnucleus is a much better one (yes, it's for Windows), and it's GPL as well.

On a wider note, the history of P2P file sharing seems to indicate that centralized systems will always be faster than something like Gnutella, but conversely easier for the big people to shut down. Freenet and Mojonation were two great white hopes a couple of years ago, but they currently seem to be mired in development hell, without a significant new release for a very long time. The only system that's going on stronger than ever is Gnutella.

I't s a Dutch court making the order..

[Bitsy Boffin]

For those who didn't read the artikle, it's a Dutch court who ordered the Dutch company to cease & desist.

More to the point, Kazaa (the file sharing system) and FastTrack (the network (and libraries for accessing it)) are one and the same, so this should also affect Morpehus and Grokster (not to mention the buggy linux Kazaa client) !

This is bad bad news. Quick to the Kazaa before it goes away !

Re:I't s a Dutch court making the order..

[Trepidity]

However, it does rely on a central server for managing connections. You connect to the Kazaa server, it passes you lists of other users to connect to (much like the Gnutella host caches do). Theoretically users can keep track of clients themselves, or mirrors of the host servers can be set up, but provisions for this are not built into the major clients - if the central servers shut down, the network shuts down too, because nobody can find anybody else without modified clients.

Re:I't s a Dutch court making the order..

[psych031337]

This is bad bad news. Quick to the Kazaa before it goes away !

...and the good news is, that it will take at least two weeks. Also the court has ordered the IFPI (the Dutch RIAA companion) to hold talks with "Consumer Empowerment" (the company that developed FastTrack protocol on which all clients rely) about the formation of a legal music-distribution service.

So there might be a lot of water flowing down the Rhine before something happens. And then again, it is a Durch court. They are not really known to be a corporate whores. Hell, they smoke pot in that country so you might as well expect a sensible outcome from this...

Cisco is too big for the bully

[CaptainCarrot]

From chrisd: I bet anyday that the RIAA will sue cisco for making routers that could be used to infringe.

The RIAA is very careful to only pick on groups that can't afford better lawyers than they can. I wish they would sue; Cisco might well succeed in creating some sort of binding precedent that would put a stop to all this nonsense. The RIAA will never do that, of course...

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[NearlyHeadless]

From chrisd: I bet anyday that the RIAA will sue cisco for making routers that could be used to infringe.

The RIAA is very careful to only pick on groups that can't afford better lawyers than they can. I wish they would sue; Cisco might well succeed in creating some sort of binding precedent that would put a stop to all this nonsense. The RIAA will never do that, of course...

What crap! The law makes the distinction all the time between things whose main use is illegal and things that incidentally can be used for breaking the law. Laws against selling burglary tools have not been used to prosecute Ace Hardware.

All the cases Slashdot has covered--DeCSS, Napster, Sklyarov, KazaA, the one in Korea--are programs designed primarily to enable mass copyright infringement, even though they also have non-infringing uses. Get over this straw man argument that next they'll be coming after Cisco and FTP. It's nonsense.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Sarcasmooo!]

Explain to me what the difference is. You can use search engines to find copyrighted work to download from FTP's and websites. The only difference I see is that P2P programs are designed to funnel those people who want to share media and information on the internet into one place. Maybe you're just trolling, because it's rediculous to suggest that any of these programs were designed for copyright infringement. None of them come with programs for cracking copy-protections, or links to warez and cracking sites. Many could have that information automatically pop-up on a browser in the program, and they don't. What's nonsense is the way that programs like these, that have very substantial, legit uses, are being shutdown as an excuse for fighting 'pirates'. The end result is just to give the industry control of online sharing of media. Think about it; since you apparently haven't done enough of that. Any P2P program that pops up is going to immediately have users who share the mainstream popular media that the industry claims to be protecting. There are 500,000 people who have the latest Britney Spears album on mp3. No one who ever used Napster or Kazaa needed it to find music and video owned by the RIAA/MPAA. What those popular programs provided, was so much goddamn quantity that you could spend the whole day listening to garage bands and obscure music you heard in a commercial when you were 5 years old. Without these programs, artists who try to use the internet to spread their work become victims of an 'anti-piracy' war, and it's not a coincidence. Because now, P2P programs will stay small and obscure (grow and get sued), and we return to the pre-internet status-quo where you either do business with the RIAA or you don't do business.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[serutan]

Interesting observation. Why wait for the RIAA to sue a deep-pockets company like Cisco? I like the idea of suing the RIAA better. How about a class-action suit by musicians and music buyers against the RIAA companies for usury and monopolistic business practices? I would join the class on that one.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[CaptainCarrot]

You're ignorant.

DeCSS? Explicitly developed to enable playing DVDs on Open Source computers with DVD drives. It's hardly practical to share full-length movies over networks or even to store them locally on hard drives -- although you should note that the latter use is not infringing. I for one can't think of a single use for DeCSS that's infringing under the traditional doctrine of fair use, given the current practical technological limitations. It may well be in violation of the DMCA, but that's a seriously broken law that undermines rights that consumers of intellectual property have enjoyed for a very long time. The DMCA isn't Norweigian law, anyway.

Skylarov? His product is entirely legal in the country where he wrote it. In fact, without his company's product it's Adobe's software that's illegal. It's against the law to erect technological barriers to fair use in Russia, but that's what Adobe's so-called encryption does. It's his company that ought to have been held accountable for marketing the product in the US where it was illegal; Skylarov himself as an employee had nothing to do with that. If he's guilty of anything, it's of demonstrating that Adobe's claims about the security of their encryption scheme was a total crock. Embarrassing corporations isn't illegal -- yet.

Peer-to-peer networks? All of them run on top of the Internet, which, in the event you haven't noticed, is one vast peer-to-peer network designed for freely sharing information. None of the other indexing schemes for available information, such as Gopher or even some web pages, are not fundamentally different from networks like Gnutella.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[doorbot.com]

It's nonsense.

Hah! Nonsense is the papier-mache broad-bladed sword of the ignorant! Fear its power and quick judgement based on inaccurate information!

When weilded correctly the Nonsense Sword can bog your enemies down in such useless follies as proving your mindless drivel wrong! It slices through factoids like butter through a knife!

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Trepidity]

It's hardly practical to share full-length movies over networks or even to store them locally on hard drives -- although you should note that the latter use is not infringing. I for one can't think of a single use for DeCSS that's infringing under the traditional doctrine of fair use, given the current practical technological limitations.

Apparently you haven't been informed about filesharing within the past year or so. There are entire networks and piracy groups dedicated solely to ripping and sharing movies, and such sharing is one of the major bandwidth uses on university campuses. Sharing of full-length movies is also one of the most popular activities on the FastTrack network (Kazaa/Morpheus). It's not particularly impractical - most people find a DivX-compressed DVD to be "good enough," and typically use bitrates such that the final file size is around the size of a CD-R (~700 MB). And with the size of hard drives these days, it's not impractical to have 15-20 of these sitting around; what's more, most people burn them to CD-R's, and I know quite a few people with CD-R spindles of 100 full-length movies.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Trepidity]

No one who ever used Napster or Kazaa needed it to find music and video owned by the RIAA/MPAA. What those popular programs provided, was so much goddamn quantity that you could spend the whole day listening to garage bands and obscure music you heard in a commercial when you were 5 years old.

Note that these are not necessarily non-infringing uses either - many of these "underground" or "garage" bands are virulently anti-piracy and anti-mp3 as well, often arguing that mp3s hurt them even more than they hurt the RIAA, because "Metallica can afford to lose 1000 album sales; we can't."

And also, if you take a look at search statistics on these networks, the vast majority of people are looking for the latest Britney Spears single, not for garage bands.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Trepidity]

...for usury....

That word doesn't mean what I think you think it means.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Troed]

Oh the lies ..

DeCSS? Explicitly developed to enable playing DVDs on Open Source computers with DVD drives. It's hardly practical to share full-length movies over networks or even to store them locally on hard drives

DeCSS was explicitly developed to get access to the contents of DVD in a form that could be reprocessed and shared. Yes, I know this, I'm not guessing.

ReMPEG2 - re-encoded an mpeg2 stream to a lower bitrate etc suitable for SVCDs. This was before the popularity of DivX ;-) ... I know lots of people who download a 2CD SVCD and view that in their DVD-player with only a slightly lower quality than the DVD-original itself. The people behind DeCSS and some other tools used in the beginning all knew this was the goal ..

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Rogerborg]

• DeCSS was explicitly developed to get access to the contents of DVD in a form that could be reprocessed and shared. Yes, I know this, I'm not guessing.

And yet strangely you don't feel any need to provide a single reference to back that up.

We're listening. But you can't change our minds just by making an assertion and then slinking back to the shadows.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Rogerborg]

• The law makes the distinction all the time between things whose main use is illegal and things that incidentally can be used for breaking the law.

Are you aware of the Sony Decision? That the Supremes decided that the "main use" of VCR's is illegal, but that even the possibility of non-infringing uses meant that the VCR itself could not be banned.

This was a clear precedent which is now being ignored by ignorant revisionist judges who are apparently being swayed by the completely extra-legal argument of "corporate/national interest". We have judges now who are not just misinterpreting the law, but are blatantly adding whole new clauses to it in an attempt to outdo each other in seeing the Big Picture and bring themselves to the attention of their masters in Congress (50% of whom are members of the American Bar Association, and who decide on promotion to the Supreme Court, so separation of powers my huge hairy ass).

Please go and do some basic research before you shoot your mouth off here.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[mpe]

What's nonsense is the way that programs like these, that have very substantial, legit uses, are being shutdown as an excuse for fighting 'pirates'.

Some of the "legit uses" are more frightening to the likes of the RIAA than any form of "piracy". But they can't go to a judge and say "we are in fear of becoming obsolete"...

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Trepidity]

Usury refers to making money solely from money. As such it would encompass charging interest and most investing. It would not encompass all profit generally, however, as making money from production is not usury.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Trepidity]

I think that rather than compressed music for their PCs, people want free music. A large percentage of the non-tech-savvy people I know download mp3s solely to burn to CDs. Yet these CDs are available legally; they just don't want to pay for them.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[Trepidity]

Yeah; I'd agree. If you think a DivX is "good enough," you're certainly not going to shell out $30 for a DVD, not to mention a DVD player. But an argument might be made that this online movie trading is cutting into movie rentals (e.g. Blockbuster), which both hurts that industry and by proxy the MPAA (since they can't sell as many rental copies to Blockbuster).

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[JatTDB]

Perhaps a while back, when Napster was first getting popular, you could go for an excuse like saying it wasn't designed for copyright infringement. Nowadays, however, there are two facts that render this excuse worthless:

1) With all the popular P2P filesharing systems, the vast majority of traffic (if I had to venture a guess, I'd say at least 95% and most likely more) has involved a copyright violation. Yes, there's the occasional small band just trying to get their name out there...but that's a tiny minority.

2) Due to the popularity of Napster and the widespread reporting of the legal entanglements, it is unreasonable to ask authorities to believe that the authors of any new P2P filesharing program thought the program would be used primarily for legitimate and legal transfers. It is even pretty unreasonable to ask the authorities to believe that the anticipated volume of illegal transfers (and thus ad revenue from a lot of the adware clients) was not a major factor in the decision to write and publish the software in the first place.

I'm not crying this out from some moral high-horse...I've got plenty of mp3's that I don't have the albums for...but this rhetoric of "it wasn't written with the purpose of facilitating illegal acts!" is getting old...it's worthless...and it'll never convince a court, because it is complete and utter bullshit. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[JatTDB]

That's what the Home Recording Act or whatever was all about. There's 2 key differences that have been said a thousand times before, but apparently you haven't heard them yet. First, we're talking about digital copies. Yeah, a 128kbit mp3 doesn't sound as good as the original CD, but no matter how many copies you make, or how many generations of copies are made by others, the quality will never degrade further. In your boom box example, by generation 5 or 6, the copy you get is practically unlistenable.

Second is scale...you touched on this a little, but I think you're understating it to a degree. In the boom box days, you'd buy a tape, and make a copy for maybe a half-dozen friends on average. With P2P filesharing stuff, you now have a few thousand friends, and you don't mind making copies for all of them since you don't have to take the time to get blanks, or perform the actual physical copy process...you just leave your machine on and people come and get stuff. The scale is immensely larger than could ever be achieved back then.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[krlynch]

Skylarov? His product is entirely legal in the country where he wrote it. In fact, without his company's product it's Adobe's software that's illegal.

So, what is your point? If Adobe sells its product in Russia, isn't it guilty of breaking the law there, and can't the Russians prosecute? Your argument would suggest that the Russians can't prosecute; after all, it is completely legal for Adobe to write its code as it did in the place where they wrote their code...

The real point is that, regardless of whether you like a law or not (and I don't like this one either), if you violate that law, you should expect to pay the consequences. When Skylarov came to the US and "distributed" his "illegal" product, he violated the law. If he hadn't come to the US, he couldn't have been prosecuted; he wasn't prosecuted for writing the software, but for distribution ONCE HE WAS IN THE US...

Consider: it is not illegal for private citizens to traffic in military hardware in some countries; does that mean that a citizen of a foreign power should be able to do so in the US without fear of prosecution? It is illegal in Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan to preach Christianity; do you think that they care that it isn't illegal to do so where the preachers came from? Distribution of marijuana is legal in Belgium. Should the Dutch citizen who transports that marijuana to England be immune from prosecution just because it is legal where he came from? It is legal to produce cars in Poland that don't meet US environmental and crash safety standards...you're argument implies that import into the US should be allowed because it isn't illegal in the country of origin. Hopefully, you understand where I'm going with this, because I have to get back to work :-)

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[krlynch]

That the Supremes decided that the "main use" of VCR's is illegal, but that even the possibility of non-infringing uses meant that the VCR itself could not be banned. [snip] We have judges now who are not just misinterpreting the law, but are blatantly adding whole new clauses to it

The irony here is incredible .... after all, isn't that what the Supreme Court did when it decided the Betamax case? How about the Dredd Scott decision? Or even the Marberry case, which established the principle of judicial review? What about the Roe decision? The constitution grants no "right to privacy". It also makes no explicit grant of "freedom of expression" in the First Amendment, but the court has interpreted the Speech clause to cover non-verbal forms of expression (not just non-verbal forms of communication, but the much broader "expression"). How about the Brown decision, in which court ordered forced school desegragation? All of these are court ordered "misinterpretations" of the law; under your description; should all of them should be tossed out as well?

Finally, note that while there IS law and court precedent protecting the "right" to make analog copies OF THINGS YOU ALREADY PAID FOR, as well as THINGS DISTRIBUTED OVER THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES, they are based on the idea that such copies are imperfect and inferior to high quality commercial copies, and thus not a danger that copyright currently protects against. The rationale of these laws and precedents does NOT apply to digital copies, so to expect that decisions will be extended to cover them is a mistake. You can't pull out the parts of a decision that you LIKE and ignore the parts things that they are based on (well, you CAN, but doing so will be to your detriment), rather, you have to argue WHY the rationale that leads to those previous decisions also applies to the new precedent you want set. If you don't do that, you will not prevail.

Re:Cisco is too big for the bully

[ryanwright]

When Skylarov came to the US and "distributed" his "illegal" product,

You're forgetting the fact that he didn't distribute it. His employer did. He just gave a speech on how it worked.

there are some 'S's to go with your 'A'

[doug13]

"...revealed when a Recording Industry Ass. of America internal memo..."

Thats 'ass' in print folks....its Official!

Yawn.

[drix]

Now seems like an opportune time to remind everybody that the FastTrack protocol was reverse-engineered some months ago by these guys (definitely a highly impressive RE feat, IMHO). gIFT is a fully functional, open source FastTrack implementation which happily coexisted with Kazaa and Morpheus until FastTrack decided to break it by further obfuscating their protocol. Which is a shame, because in doing so they make the FastTrack protocol reliant on centrally run servers to obtain a cryptographic key... this is all covered in detail on the gIFT website. Long story short, Kazaa can go down in flames for all I care, even though I use it almost every day. gIFT is in the public domain and here to stay. It's not ever going to be taken away from us. It works like a charm. It's decentralized. And it's just waiting to load up on content so it can gain that critical mass of users needed for widespread acceptance. Kind of a chicken or the egg problem, I suppose. So my advice to everyone is to start running gIFT and develop OpenFT network. This sounds like bluster but it's true for the time being: gIFT is the be-all-end-all of P2P filesharing.

Re:Yawn.

[Trepidity]

What's superior about gIFT to Gnutella? I thought the protocol itself was not superior - the only reason it was used more was because of Kazaa being a large network. And if the large centralized portion of Kazaa shuts down, it loses the advantage, and becomes just another non-centralized network, like Gnutella.

Re:Yawn.

[ReelOddeeo]

The only reason that KaZaa are in trouble is because they blocked people who thought that they should share their file sharing software. If they hadn't been so megalomanic, they wouldn't be in this trouble.

Can you please elaborate? How is this so?

FYI: They are NOT decentralized

[BinaryAlchemy]

They were when they started (Morpheous and Kazaa both use the FastTrack network). But they moved to a system where you must log on to a central server before you can join the network. Take a look at the giFT project for more info (they were an open source client before the network closed).

giFT Project

They are also working on a new version of the network they call OpenFT.

Not decentralized...

[StormySky]

I don't think any of the MusicCity protocol clients are decentralized. Or are our peers serving up those ADs? There was file sharing prior to Napster and friends --- anyone remember the days of searching Audiogalaxy for ftp sites, or, IRC? The problem with all the current crop of 'solutions' out there are that they're huge targets (Morpheus/Kazaa), don't work very well (gnutella), are good ideas but fail to work even a quarter of the time (Freenet) or are absolute utter crap (Mojonation). Any system designed specifically for file sharing will *have* to be a target to the idiots who don't comprehend that the genie's out of the bag. Notice that they're not tackling file trading on IRC, or, heck, even usenet as hard? I wonder what's going to happen when there's a nice convenient client that does chat (100% legit use), IMs (100% legit use) AND allows one to search for files of any type, without advertising and central servers? Certainly something I'd love to code if I could figure out, and something that would be near impossible to 'take down'. (Yes, the devil is in the details, but it is feasible, if you think about it.) Surely at some point there will be a p2p client not operated by any company (read: target), and even the RIAA and friends would eventually have to admit the futility of shutting down millions of nodes... especially when you can't identify easily which people are just chatting and which are actually trading files.

Re:Not decentralized...

[Smthng]

>>nice convenient client that does chat (100% legit use), IMs (100% legit use) AND allows one to search for files of any type, without advertising and central servers

Interesting that you should mention this specific list, because every single one of these functions can be coded into an irc client/script !!

For best results this client would have to rely on irc servers have a built in file server and have a carefully designed gui as well as hopefully running on many platforms.

Maybe it's time to reinvent mIRC and X-chat using a common tooolkit (qt?) and dumbed down simplified gui. Is there any reason why this wouldn't work ?

Re:Not decentralized...

[bonzoesc]

It's already been done - take a look at Direct Connect at www.neo-modus.com . Sure, it's only for Windows, but it's basically a fancy irc client that connects to a fancy irc server.

Centralized Servers == Bad

[E1ven]

The hard part about this is that the FT stack was designed to be distributed, like Gnutella.
There is not central server, like there was with Napster.

It's all peer->peer->Superpeer, where the SuperClient helps to route things, solving the scaling problems of Gnutella.

So there isn't a Server to shut down.
A least, there never USED to be.

When GiFT came out, Kazaa and Morpheus switched to authorizing people through a centralized sever, before accessing the peer->peer network.

Coincidentally, shortly after they implemented this filter, they were sued.

Let's look who's been sued over this.
Napster, Imesh, Kazaa post-auth server
Who hasn't been sued
Bearshare, Limewire, Kazaa pre-auth server, GiFT, Freenet, WinMX

It seems that the RIAA knows that they don't have a chance of shutting down a network that doesn't use a central server, so they aren't trying.

You may also have a stronger legal case that way. In the napster hearings, one of the key points was that napsters servers let it happen. Napster had control.

I think that what we're learning from this is if you never touch the packets yourself, just release the client and hope for the best, you're in much safer waters.

Colin

Re:Centralized Servers == Bad

[nsample]

Yes, in the Napster case "control" of the network was a critical issue. Specifically, though, it's a two-tiered test in order to have "vicarious liability" like the courts found Napster did... e.g., who is liable for what in terms of a P2P network's content. Remember, you need two things: the ability to supervise, and the making of profit.

Vicarious liability arises when the defendant "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022.

Also, there's still the good competitive analysis of kazaa, etc. from the RIAA (where we also find the codification of liability):

http://www.dotcomscoop.com/riaamemo.html

Re:Centralized Servers == Bad

[gleam]

part of the problem is also that kazaa et al run supernodes and provide dynamic server lists, which is part of the "facilitation" aspect of the claim.

The RIAA knows they don't have as strong a case as they did against napster, but they still have a case.

My favorite part is that kazaa is partially encrypted, so any attempts by the RIAA to reverse engineer it are illegal under the DMCA

-gleam

Re:Centralized Servers == Bad

[nabucco]

Yes - Fasttrack (Kazaa/Morpheus) has centralized servers which require authentication, which means it's easy to shut down, like Napster was. Gnutella (Bearshare, Limewire) has no such centralization/authentication, which makes it near impossible to shut down. It's protocol is published, so anyone can write an open source or commerical application to access Gnutella. Gnutella server/clients (servents) are popular - Bearshare and Limewire are the 10th and 11th most popular downloads on Download.com, and both have been on the top 50 list for longer than Kazaa or Morpheus. Gnutella developers have been working together and seperately to solve problems such as automatically getting high-speed hosts into the center of the network, preventing too much freeloading, allowing multi-sourced downloading and so forth. They have already had success in all of these areas. The protocol is published, and there are many excellent Gnutella server/clients that are open sourced (Limewire, Gnucleus, gnut etc.)

I find publishing networks like Freenet and Mojo Nation interesting as well. They are not as functional as Gnutella or FastTrack networks currently, but they are very interesting. Freenet gets a lot of press, but in my opinion Mojo Nation is much more functional currently, and has had more development put into it. If you are interested in P2P networks, you should download Mojo Nation to see how much crazy stuff they have already put into it. Mojo Nation is the most functional publishing network I've seen thus far, and it's quite interesting. It's more for techies interested in the possibilities of P2P however, for functionality, stick with Gnutella.

Re:Centralized Servers == Bad

[Shagg]

When GiFT came out, Kazaa and Morpheus switched to authorizing people through a centralized sever, before accessing the peer->peer network.

Coincidentally, shortly after they implemented this filter, they were sued.

I've been wondering, what would stop everyone from just running the old (pre-central authorizing) client if FastTrack does have to shut down their central server? Is there still some fundamental involvment from the FastTrack servers with that older client?

Re:Centralized Servers == Bad

[spankfish]

Vicarious liability arises when the defendant "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022.

So this effectively means that one cannot get sued for merely writing some nifty software.

Groovy.

WinMX

[DarkZero]

For anyone that's unfortunately bound to Windows and is looking for a new file sharing service to jump to, I'd recommend WinMX. It's a great P2P program that has always had whatever I'm looking for (and what I look for is pretty damn obscure, i.e. Asian pop and such), yet has still remained firmly under the radars of the RIAA and MPAA. Of course, at the rate the RIAA is going, every currently existing P2P program will be gone eventually (though they will be replaced with new ones in the mean time), but I estimate that you'll get at least six or ten months of use, and possibly much more, out of this one.

And by the way, for those that are modding this... I do not work for WinMX in any capacity, nor do I have any financial or personal stake in it. I'm just trying to help the people that looked at this article and thought, "Well, damn. What's left for me to go to now that doesn't suck?".

Not according to my dictionary.

[Error27]

From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993) [devils]:

PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it.

Already shut down for me and others

[DCowern]

My university apparently decided to block access to FastTrak clients. A quick tip for others afflicted with the same problem, find a program called Proxy Hunter and scan other .edu's for unsecured proxies. That's how I get on now. I know that makes me an asshole but a) I want my MP3s, dammit and b) it's partly the fault of whoever is silly enough to leave an open proxy server sitting on their network.

Re: Already shut down for me and others

[ZxCv]

What a dumbass analogy.

An open proxy server is vulnerable to attack simply because of some administrator's incompetence, ignorance, laziness, or all three. A potential rape victim is vulnerable to attack simply because this world is full of some sick fucks, and nothing more.

I'm certainly not saying just because something is vulnerable to attack that it is OK to attack it. I'm simply saying that the two situations are so completely different that it makes absolutely no sense to try and relate them in an analogy.

RIAA Lawsuit Spree...

[x136]

I bet anyday that the RIAA will sue cisco for making routers that could be used to infringe.

In other news, the RIAA has filed lawsuits against Intel, AMD, and Motorola, alleging that processors produced by the aforementioned companies are being used to decode illegal pirated music.

openFT an alternative?

[fault0]

Last I heard, not only were the giFT folks made an open sourced version of fasttrack (used by both kazaa and morpheus), but also, they were developing openFT, which is compeletely independent of kazaa, so if it were to go down, then we could still use it. there'd be no way to block it either, and it works much better (as in more reliably) than gnutella.

note that a few days after kazaa blocked giFT, they were sued by the RIAA. this was because they switched to a partially centralized network from a network that had previously only used central servers for authentication (which giFT had never used).

Re:openFT an alternative?

[Trepidity]

The problem being, of course, that this action will shut down 99% of the users of the FastTrack network, which will make it virtually useless. If all you're looking for is an open network, there are already dozens; Gnutella, the various OpenNap clones, etc. FastTrack's advantage was that it had critical mass, which will no longer be the case if all the Windows Kazaa/Morpheus users are cut off.

yeh, apparently these apps arn't server dependent

[DABANSHEE]

Fast-track (Kazar, Morpheus, Grokster) apparently use some sort of P2P 'supernode' setup, where clients on computers with large bandwidth (like on-campus student networks) act as 'supernode', ie they act as servers, transparently to the user/s.

Also Xolox uses the Gnutella network, so each client behaves like a transparent server.

Because of that, you log on right now & even though Xolox says that they have shutdown because of the legal situation, the app still searches/downloads/uploads files perfectly well via the Gnutella network.

So as far as my take on this is concerned, all these law suites can do is stop new revisions of these apps - they can't stop people using these apps even if the licensies/distributers of those apps shutdown.

Re:Not decentralized?

[jx100]

It used to be largely decentralized, but in an attempt(and a sucesful one at that) to block out giFT an open source client to the KaZaA/MusicCity network, they put in some central servers to identify clients more thoroughly. Basically, it does give them a bit more liablity(since now the network will not work without them), and it keeps other(non-"them") clients out.

Good riddance to spyware

[Sarcasmooo!]

I don't like the copyright cartel anymore than most people here; in fact I probably hate them a lot more than most people do. But I also hate having spyware installed on my system without my knowledge. Like Kazaa does with Cydoor. So to all the guys at Kazaa, you can't see it, but at this very instant I'm giving you the big middle finger.

Re:Good riddance to spyware

[HiThere]

The early reports were that even if you said "No", they installed ??? (some kind of monitor) anyway. I wouldn't know, personally, since I've never even tried, but it's closed source, so skepticism may be desireable.

At least they got it right.

[Sebby]

....revealed when a Recording Industry Ass. of America internal memo was leaked to Web site Dotcom Scoop. Not long after the leaked memo was published, the RIAA and the Motion Picture Ass. of America sued KaZaA ...

The RIAA and MPAA sure are asses!

Not translated quite correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

The translation of the actual result seems to have lost some detail.

Basically - KaZaA is ordered itself to stop infringing on arfists their right withing two weeks. It is not said that they are actually doing so - but if they are - they better not do it two weeks from now.

But at the same time - the dutch version of the RIAA (well not quite comparable - the legal framing is way different) is ordered to sit down with KaZaA withing two days to reach agreement as to how to legally offer music.

So the sword cuts two ways. While it is by no means clear yet -if- kazaa actually has stepped on the artist rights in any way.

Also note that Buma/Stemra is quite in a different leage that the RIAA, has a lot more legal shackles and govt. oversight - and typically chargers very reasonable fees - for end users in the fractions of dollars per song. And is very cognant of fair use. The netherlands is rift with things like public libraries which rent out popular music.

Multiple A Logic

[Jugalator]

"I had no idea Kazaa was this popular (must be all those a's in their name)."

Proof That A's Don't Determine Popularity

Kazaa = 3 A's.

RIAA + MPAA = 4 A's.

Still, Kazaa is more popular than RIAA and MPAA together.

This post is XHTML 1.0 compliant!

OLD VERSIONS?

[mcrbids]

FT used to work w/o central servers - and presumably, the OLDER clients would work just fine, even without their parent companies.

SO WHO HAS OLD VERSIONS OF THE SOFTWARE?

Re:OLD VERSIONS?

[ryanwright]

Me (raises hand)

But I doubt it will do us much good.

Decentralizing etc..

[TheCrunch]

KaZaa, Morpheus & Grokster are clients for the (decentralized) FastTrack network. So unless the RIAA go after FastTrack, good ol' Morph & Grok should be OK. Possibly. I read a while back that in their attempts to stop giFt, K, M & G made all user authentication go through a central server. Hence the "possibly".

One thing I never did figure out was why K, M & G all look the same (bar different icons). What's up with that?? As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA can kill as many clients as they like. There will always be more (and better) P2P apps cropping up. Kinda like natural selection.

Anyhoo, here are some old Slashdot posts on the subject:

RIAA Looks To Stop KaZaA, Morpheus & Grokster
File Sharing: Decentralizing, Open-Source Fasttrack

-TheCrunch
.sig .freud

gIFT is Not the Best

[The Raven]

From what I have seen, eDonkey2000 is a much better P2P that allows anyone to setup a central server... not only that, but a central server uses very little bandwidth. You can serve 100 clients on a MODEM for pete's sake. There is very little minute-to-minute traffic when using eDonkey2000, unlike Gnutella based clients.

eDonkey is quite stable. All it needs to really succeed is shorter connection timeouts and some automatic retry functionality... in particular, you have to manually expand a search, and it takes some time.

Vote eDonkey for P2P president!

Slashdot editors live under rocks?

[Trepidity]

I had no idea Kazaa was this popular

It's good to see Slashdot editors keep up with technology. FWIW, the FastTrack network (through the Kazaa and Morpheus clients) has consistently been the single largest bandwidth user amongst colleges and universities for the past few months.

webwereld.nl

[leuk_he]

The register points to this article on webwereld.nl . Since i am not aware of any automated translaters:

Rechter: KaZaA over twee weken dicht
judge:Kaza must close in 2 weeks

This is the remarkable outcome of a "kort geding" (court where outcome is in a short time) between kazaA and music right organisation "Buma/Stemra". If kazaa does not comply they must pay 100.00 guildens (~45.000 euro) a day with a max of 2 Million guildens. This outcome can end the Kazaa, that is one of the biggest music exchane services since the departure of napster.

The judge also dertermined that BUMA/stemra must meet with Kazaa to negotiate a contract where Kaaza can legaly offer misc via the internet. Accoridng to kazaa there was already a oral agreement with the buma/stemra the they canceled the engotioations.

Loyer Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm sees the judgement as a vicotry , in spite of the closing threat. "it is fantastic that they have to negotioate with us again. That means we still have enough time to make an agreement."
...

about the passage in the verdict about the "auteursrecht" [copy right? ] he is less to speak. "in the verdict is that kazaa breachtes the copyright. This is nonsense. The users are responsible for this. With the same argument one could close the suppliers of video recorders"

. . . appeal. . .

according to Alberdingk Thijm the verdict only has consequense for the software. This means that the network where also morpheur and grokster make use of stay 'open'. Poeple who already have installed kazaa soule be able to continue with using the network.

.
.
.
Buma/stemra did not react. "we do that when we studied the verdict"

[sorry for speliing errors and parts left out]

it's the dutch RIAA

[pyz]

> To explain why the RIAA can file suit against a > Dutch filesharing system... It's not the RIAA, it's a dutch organization, BUMA/STEMRA. It's kind of like the dutch counterpart for RIAA, but BUMA/STEMRA claims to also represent music composers and the like. They have a site but it's in dutch and that stumps the fish.

On a sidenote, local news has it that Kazaa is more than willing to transform itself into a subscription service (as in non-free) but not that eager to be the first to do it (causing everybody to flock to gnutella I guess.)

cheers

pyz

2 am, it's time for a rambly ranting.

[StormySky]

IRC is very problematic, though. First off, there are many different IRC networks, which adds to hassle for the casual user in knowing which to connect to (though, it is nice to spice things up a bit for those trying to destroy it...) and a requirement to create the same kind of Napster (--) OpenNapster proxies that came about shortly before its demise. Next, we again have very large centralized servers. I was going to toss up a DAL server on a T1 about a year ago, and, after reading the peering process, canned the idea. Further, IRC is a horribly inefficient protocol, and we've not even gotten into exploit issues, netsplits, and all the other joys we know and love. :) File *transfer* works just fine in DCC, but for the functionality of stuff like Morpheus, it wouldn't make sense just to tack it on.

What a couple of us (anonymous geeky types trying to read what's left of the First Admendment through the brown stains (ref: Brian Dalton, Ohio)) have been tossing around is a p2p system that would be totally encrypted, and provide a one stop place for all your networking needs. ::smirks widely:: Right, AOL. ::shudders:: But, seriously. A good majority of people online are soccer moms who don't know why they should use encryption, don't think they're doing anything wrong (and thus have nothing to hide), and can barely navigate. (IE is "the web"). A nice gui (multi-platform, of course, and done in qt or wxwindows) that does the encryption behind the scenes for their chatting and instant messaging would be a *huge* hit. I just removed Earthlink from a neighbours system. Their software is HIDEOUS! She put it on there because she wanted things "all in one place". (As an aside, I called Earthlink's tech support while I was there, and asked why the smtp server address they gave her wasn't working. After I was told that smtp stood for "send mail to people", I rather quickly hung up. Turned out that they'd bought out the ISP she was using, but that she needed to use the old isps hostnames, as earthlink hadn't gotten around to providing customers from her area with access. She lives 5 miles away but it's long distance for me to call her. Rah!)

Where was I? Oh, right. Soccer moms. Anyway, the key to any p2p system surviving is *normal* users. Despite the numbers, all existing file share systems seem to be people with lots of time on their hands, or very technically inclined. The people who log in for a couple hours to chat with grandma, or little neice Susie, or check the latest news bulletins AREN'T using them. And if they're not using them, when the systems are shut down, you aren't getting the mainstream mass media outcry. This again goes to legitimacy. It can't be tacked on to IRC, because IRC already has enough kludges added and needs to be respectfully laid to rest. You *cannot* have a "content publishing system" that's true p2p and have it *be useable* without the industry clowns attacking it. (Look at Freenet, and tell me how long it takes you to find a key of something interesting, much less to download it. The fact that I'm actually going to have to buy the O'Reilly book on p2p should say something. Wait, I buy all the O'Reilly books. But if I didn't... :-) ) I think the best solution is to build (sigh, yet ANOTHER) protocol (open) based on the best aspects of the open protocols that exist, and make a single client/server multiplatform application that everyone can use, and the government can tear its hair out over because it's not as easy as harrassing an ISP to read what everyone's saying.

This isn't as grandiose as you might think, and people far smarter than me have even done some parts of it. No one, though, has put it all together. I won't keep rambling on details, but, check out Mojonation: For the file sharing end, it addresses a lot of issues that haven't been before (mojo/leech consequences, ratings, etc). However, it's an utter piece of shit --- requires a web browser (expects IE? Yech!), is abysmally slow to publish, and, in my experience, impossible to download on. And, again, just file sharing.

This is probably longer than it needed to be, but, as you might have guessed, something I'm really interested in. I have no idea how it would be possible to have a p2p without central servers (elitist hubs in IRC talk) and yet provide reliable delivery. Even a quasi-p2p network with NO commercial entities involved, and as much anonymity thrown in as possible would be better than what's going on now.

Again, reiterating my first post, if a million people are all chatting encrypted, and there's no way to see who's doing what, there's just no way to shut it down. Maybe I'm still naive, but I don't think we're past the point where we can grasp unto what freedoms we have left and hold on tight...

Re:2 am, it's time for a rambly ranting.

[crucini]

Thank you. That was the most intelligent thing I've read on this thread. Some thoughts:

1. By default, it should find and share all mp3's, vcd's, etc on the disk. Napster took off because it shared the downloads by default. It's reasonable to take this a step further, now that there's such a high chance that the user previously ran a different sharing program.
   
2. The program should take the user by the hand, like an installation wizard. On first starting, it should ask the user to pick two favorite genres of music. Then it should show the most popular downloads within those genres. If the user doesn't choose anything, and the connection is not being used heavily, the program should randomly pick and start downloading one of the most popular files in the genre. And this should be made visibly obvious to the user in a way that invites intervention.
   
3. We need a Tivo-like associative rating, where you can give things a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, causing other files to appear in the suggestion list (and possibly get downloaded automatically). This would be backed by a cryptographic network of trust, so the originators of the network would anonymously endorse users who have good associative judgement, who would in turn endorse more users.
   
4. We need an abuse-resistant mechanism to propogate relevant news items, complete with hyperlinks, within the program. So if congressman Greedo introduces legislation against p2p, an appropriate hyperlink to this story will pop up on each user's program. This will help polarize the "soccer moms" against the cartels.
   
5. We need a system that progressively restricts the IP addresses permitted to connect as the number of nodes grows. This makes it difficult to 'sweep' a network from one IP address and identify all the nodes. In other words, the number of nodes available to me should grow as the square root of the number of nodes in the network.
   

And now some problems:

1. People generally don't code Windows for fun.
2. At some point, the ability to search for material means you can identify an IP address that is offering copyrighted material for download. Thus, the user can be targeted and punished - adequate enforcement on this front could dry up the network. Encryption doesn't help here, because the information must be accessible to the client.
3. Corporations will release modified versions of the program with banner ads and privacy invasion, and these will be the norm due the corporations superior marketing reach.
4. RIAA/MPAA could finally do the intelligent thing (don't know why they haven't) and create thousands of bogus clients flooding the network with junk.

It's no big deal ...

[uebernewby]

... really.

The RIAA (well, in this case their Dutch counterparts BUMA/STEMRA, actually) are fighting a losing battle, as they probably know very well. At least, they should know this from looking at recent events surrounding napster.

First, there's a thing called GNUtella. Doesn't work very well, but it works, but, well, it doesn't work very well. Then, for a while (how long did Napster actually last? A few months or so?) something comes along that does the same as GNUtella, but it's much easier to use. So everyone switches over, because, well, freedom and decentralization are nice ideas and all, but ease of use is nice too. For a few months, everyone uses the ultra friendly Napster thing 'till the RIAA takes note and sues Napster. Exit Napster. Tons of internet (l)users have, however, by now learnt of the joys of P2P filesharing, so they go to GNUtella, which may suck, but it's still better than nothing.

Along comes FastTrack (KaZaa/Morpheus/Grokster). It's really easy to use, so everyone and their mom installs it. For a few months, users are happy. Then the RIAA takes note, orders FastTrack shutdown ... you can finish the rest.

This will keep happening until the RIAA finally gives up. Since that's rather unlikely, the cycle "sucky Gnutella -> nice GUI app -> nice GUI app shut down -> sucky Gnutella" will continue forever.

Re:It's no big deal ...

[uebernewby]

Personally, I'd hardly consider Kazaa/FastTrack to be distributed. There's central servers alright, they're called supernodes and they basically do the same thing as Napster's servers: they make the network run more smoothly en efficiently, something no TRUE p2p-network, such as GnuTella, can accomplish. If you're on dialup, you won't be a supernode, but if you're sitting on a nice, fat .edu pipe, chances are you'll be the local server for people in your general area. To date, openFT hasn't implemented this element of what makes Kazaa slightly more usable than GnuTella.

What's more important, Kazaa (and Musiccity/Morpheus etc) run servers themselves to ensure an even greater efficiency. Take them out of the equation and I'll guarantee you Kazaa or any open implementation of the FastTrack protocol will start to suck pretty near as much as GNUtella does (though if it's the only alternative, I'll take it, until some company is foolish enough to set up a new protocol with dedicated servers again). Face it, distributed networking will never be as efficient and sexy as using big, fat central servers. There's just too much overhead involved.

Re:Too bad

[ZxCv]

So those Word docs I shared on Morpheus detailing code research constitute copyright violation? What about the MP3s my friend puts up everyday of the music HE creates.

Your ignorant view of fair use is exactly why we have corporations and lawyers attacking it everyday. It's an established legal precedent in the US:

If a device has non-infringing uses and is marketed as such, the fact that it may have infringing uses is completely irrelevant.

See: BetaMax, Diamond RIO.

Sure, there are people out there that will use this legitimate sharing software to illegaly trade files, be it music or photos or movies. But there are people out there that make 10 copies of every movie they buy and give em away to friends. Same idea. You cannot prosecute the legitimate tools; you must prosecute the individuals making illegitimate use of the tools.

See: Metallica, Dr Dre identify individual Napster users violating copyright.

Re:Time to unholster the clue stick

[ZxCv]

If there exists a law that blatantly contradicts the constitution, is that law actually valid?

Yup, unfortunately. It depends on where the jurisdiction of the law is, but it requires some court (usually the Supreme Court) to overturn it before its actually invalid.

Kazaa/Morpheus port throttling by universities

[Colin Winters]

Here at the University of Illinois, which 2 years ago banned napster, they have decided to throttle the ports that files transfer on (1214). You can search for files, but trying to download from anyone will result in connections slower than 1 KB/s. Does anyone else have any experience with ISPs or universities doing this?

I think they went to the throttling method to make people say "Oh, it's just slow today." This keeps them from looking from alternatives-when napster got blocked, everyone just switched to gnutella. Colin Winters

Re:Kazaa/Morpheus port throttling by universities

[Foogle]

The University of Massachusetts in Amherst has done the same thing. The Office of Intormation Technology here has throttled the ports that are used by Napster, iMesh, FastTrack, and the default port for Gnutella. So we can still use the services, but off-campus downloads are restricted to about 1.5 kbytes/sec.

Re:Kazaa/Morpheus port throttling by universities

[Foogle]

Gnutella can switch ports, but you can hardly tell all the *other* users of Gnutella to share their files on a port that you can use. If the default sharing port on Gnutella machines is 7600, then I have to download from 7600. And if my University restricts that port, I'm out of luck unless everyone else switches up to a port that I can use unrestricted.

Which brings us to port 80, for HTTP. Sure, file-sharing services could use port 80 to download from, and that would be fine -- except that it's just as easy to block people from running services on port 80 as it is on any other port. A number of ISPs already block that port, so their users can't run webservers. On top of that, even if the port is unrestricted, you've now got a conflict if you try to run both your file-sharing program and a webserver.

Xolox still works though

[DABANSHEE]

Shuting down the company made no difference on the functionality of the app.

You can still search/upload/download fine.

That's the great thing about P2P,

If it wasn't for fastrack altering their software to make one logon, to block out the open source reversed engineered Fastrack client, GIFT (which btw also does transparent 'supernode' serving on clients with good bandwidth & storage, just like the legit Fastrack apps themselves), then those fastrack apps would be immune from being made dysfunctional by having their corporate creators shutdown

Some background on the FT network

[jquirke]

The FastTrack network has a very scalable two-level structure. Every computer on the network is initially a 'node', however nodes with significant bandwidth are promoted to 'supernode' status.

The KaZaa/Morpheus servers handle logging in and refer the node to a supernode, where the node sends its list of files it wants to share. These super-nodes store these lists, and search queries are forwarded to the supernodes.

A supernode also gives the lists of some of the clients its connected to, so if the supernode disappears nodes can talk to other nodes about supernodes without getting kicked off the network.

So, effectively the network is controlled by the supernodes, which can be just ordinary PCs with reasonable bandwidth. The KaZaa servers only handle the logging in pretty much, so I doubt the FastTrack network could ever technically be shut down. Unfortunately the FastTrack protocol is very proprietary, and uses some closed-source algorithms. It would be good to see someone create an open-source 'equivalent' of the p2p protocol with the excellent features of FastTrack.

Anyway that's just my understanding of the FastTrack network, correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Some background on the FT network

[steve_bryan]

The open protocol equivalent of the FastTrack network is Gnutella. From all appearences the FastTrack network uses a slightly modified gnutella protocol. It is tricky to pin down exactly what improves the FastTrack experience but I would say it is the two-tiered network where only the supernodes have the responsibility of routing most packet traffic.

Ironically this modification of the gnutella protocol was introduced about a year ago by Clip2 when they introduced their Reflector. FastTrack made the observation that this sort of enhancement should be an organizing principle for the entire network rather than a marginal enhancement. It helps to minimize network traffic while extending network visibility horizon by orders of magnitude (by the ratio of nodes : supernodes).

Even as these events transpire the various gnutella clients are in the process of implementing the two layer structure in a very public presentation and review of the needed protocol modifications. Simultaneously we are in the process of adding full file hash values in order to improve the quality of files that can be found and downloaded over gnutella. When hash information has been successfully deployed on the gnutella network we will also be able to implement swarm downloads.

It is a slower process to have a public protocol evolve to respond to empirical results for a variety of clients. But in the end it might be a more robust method.

ARRRRRRRR

[Asicath]

I didnt even know ye olde Kazaa werrrre arrround. arrrrrrrh. - A music Pirate

RIAA's Next Target

[ecampbel]

I disagree with you that gIFT is is a viable alternative to Kazaa because it hasn't implemented the super node aspect of Kazaa. Basically, it's only useful for connecting to existing FastTrack networks, not forcreating entirely new independent networks.

However, I have no doubt that either gIFT or another open source alternative file sharing network will duplicate or surpass the functionality Kazaa currently provides. This will be especially true if FastTrack is shut down. Just look at download.com's Macintosh section. Because Kazaa has not been ported to the Macintosh, two versions of the open source gnutella clone are ranked one and two.

Clearly, there is a huge appetite for file sharing software that will no doubt be met by talented open source programmer perhaps even operating anonymously. While it may seem like this would provide cover from RIAA and other organization lawsuits, I believe it won't. gnutella, gIFT and all other file sharing tools rely on centralized servers for at least the distribution of their software. The RIAA could easily threaten suits against Limeware, sourceforge.net, and any other entity hosting file sharing tools or even linking to them. The latest deCSS court decisions banning linking prove this to be the case.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Where is their case??

[KilBee]

It seems that the RIAA based their cases against MP3.com and Napster on the proof that illegal file swapping was indeed occuring.

But since the network protocol behind FastTrack is encrypted, how are they going to prove that anything illegal is actually happening without breaking the DMCA?

At most, they have evidence, but no proof.

IANAL. Obviously it can't be that simple, so please enlighten me.

Better(?) translation of original webwereld.nl art

[toadnine]

A more complete and better(?) translation of the webwereld.nl article.

Judge: KaZaA must close in two weeks

Thursday, 29 November 2001 - KaZaA must stop making copyright infringements of music artists in two weeks with, a judge decided today.

That's the remarkable outcome of summary proceedings between KaZaA and Buma/Stemra [Dutch RIAA]. If KaZaA ignores the decision they are forced to pay 100,000 Dutch guilders per day, with a maximum of 2 million guilders [1 NLG = about 0.40 USD]. The verdict can mean the end of KaZaA, the largest peer to peer network after Napster.

The judge also decided Buma/Stemra must negotiate with KaZaA within two days about a treaty that will allow KaZaA to legally 'distribute' music. According to KaZaA there already was an oral agreement with Buma/Stemra when Buma/Stemra canceled negotiations at the last moment.

Victory

KaZaA's lawyer, Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm sees the verdict as a victory, despite the threat of KaZaA being forced to close. "It's of course really nice that Buma/Stemra has to negotiate with us again. That means we still have enough time to make an agreement.

Whether Buma/Stemra and KaZaA will be able to make an agreement within two weeks, Alberdingk Thijm can't say. "I find it difficult to estimate"

But Alberdingk Thijm isn't happy about the passage in the verdict about copyright infringement. "The passage says that KaZaA itself makes copyright infrigments. That's of course nonsense. The users of KaZaA are responsible for that. You could also close down companies that make VCR's with that argument."

Appeal

"You can only have a point when you say KaZaA gives users the possibility to break copyrights, the same argument used against Napster. I have the feeling the judge bungled that part of the verdict", says Alberdingk Thijm.

Thus KaZaA is thinking to appeal against that part of the verdict. "But before we make a decision we'll have to study the verdict again, calmly."

According to Alberdingk Thijm the verdict only has consequences for KaZaA's software. That means the network the company uses [FastTrack], which is also used by Morpheus (MusicCity) and Grokster, will stay 'open'.

People who already installed KaZaA on their computer, would still be able to use the network. KaZaA doesn't use central servers [they do! but it's still 'optional'] as Napster did, so stopping the service is difficult.

Buma/Stemra doesn't want to comment the verdict yet. "We will do that after wes tudied the verdict thoroughly", as George Knops of Buma/Stemra says.

Copyright (c) 2001 - WebWereld / Maarten Reijnders

Translation by Eelco Lempsink

they were their own worst enamies then?

[DABANSHEE]

It sounds like they were their own worst enamies.

Anyway if GIFT works the same way as fast track; then, I assume, if enough people download/install/run GIFT then all those GIFT running systems will creat their own fastrack like P2P network.

Really as long as the GIFT people can get a good user base then they don't need to log into the fastrack network anyway.

So what's the problem? We should all start using Gift, does gift have to log into to Fastrack to work? can GIFTers form their own network?

Re:Popularity (Here's How)

[FatChuck]

If I'm a judge, it's supremely easy to shut down Kazaa, et al. First, I shut down the servers where the program is downloaded because it leads to contributory copyright infringement, -or- I order Kazaa to come out with a new version of their software and force all previous versions to not work with the "decentralized" servers. Second, I mandate that the Kazaa people incorporate filters into their servers to screen out copyrighted files as happened with Napster. If they fail to comply with my orders, I fine 'em and jail 'em for contempt of court or massive copyright infringement.

Last, remember that Kazaa and their ilk are *not* truly p2p networks - the software they run *does* require that the program check in with Kazaa occasionally. Sure, Joe Hacker can bypass that, but good luck running this p2p network when 98 of every 100 people are off of it because they aren't hackers.

I think the point

[poemofatic]

the poster was making was that just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it's immoral, on a kin to capturing ships and killing the crew. Hell, according to Lego, using the word "legos" is an infringement of their intellectual "property" -- and they specifically mention how you are allowed to describe their product: '"lego blocks" is legal, "legos" is illegal'. A lot of us think that these IP laws have gone too far, have been rammed down our throats without our consent or representation. And just as the US govt. does when the world court rules against it, we just decide to snub our nose at the media cartels. We're not pirates. We don't bribe our congressmen, we don't sink oil tankers or sail ships to intl. waters before illegally dumping them in the sea, we're not even price fixing monopolies. No need to start slurring our reps over some file sharing.

OpenFT is what you seek!

[WD]

It would be good to see someone create an open-source 'equivalent' of the p2p protocol with the excellent features of FastTrack.

Try OpenFT / giFT.

Re:Too bad

[Junta]

I don't think that is a good comparison. Napster, FastTrack, Scourc Exchange, etc. are not marketed as non-infriging, the implications are clear that it's intended primary use is against copyright. The RIO/BetaMax comparisons aren't really valid here. A more valid comparison would be protocols such as ftp, http, and SMB. Combined with search engines, the first two *can* be used to the same purposes, but its clear that the *intent* of these protocols is not to fly in the face of copyright. Windows file sharing protocol seem like a strange thing to bring up? IIRC, before Napster or Scour Exchange, Scour had a client that did mostly the same thing as Napster, but less conveniently and used the SMB protocol as its method of operation. So we can see cases where all three have been used to infringe on copyright, but we don't see anyone making the stupid suggestion of shutting down these protocols.

I think in these cases of the RIAA and MPAA going after *for-profit* companies whose primary business is copyright infringement, RIAA and MPAA are in the right. It is in cases like DeCSS that I think MPAA and the RIAA are in the wrong (very wrong).

Re:Dutch Free Love

[Junta]

By Puritanical American ethics, yes, drugs are *so* much more evil than pirated music. But in a sane World, we realize that in and of itself, Marijuana is no more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol. Some have at least claimed its a jumping off point for harder drugs, and while that may have some truth to it, I wonder if that would stiil be the case if it were legal. If you had to obtain Tobacco illegally, I bet it too would be a jumping off drug. And yes, it is legal, but stealing is not, so this isn't so strange. That's like saying America is weird becaus the RIAA is suing left and right and tobacco is legal, and that's far more evil than pirated music. Of course, maybe there is something to be said for that argument after all :)

RIAA/MPAA/DMCA-proofing file sharing

[Webmoth]

Need an internet file-sharing utility (let's call it "KaZaak" for sake of this argument) that needs absolutely NO central servers, not even for d/l'ing KaZaak. Not even for a database of those KaZaaks that happen to have files to share.

Want to d/l KaZaak? Simply do a Google search (or other search engine) for KaZaak. Bound to turn up something. Hopefully not a lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement (which, when considering the option to view a cached page, surprises me that this hasn't happened already).

Once you find KaZaak, when you d/l it, it d/l's the database of the KaZaak you d/l'd it from. This lets you contact other KaZaaks in search of the file you are looking for.

Basically, it needs to be made bullet-proof... if bombs (or lawsuits) fall on the parent servers, the service keeps operating. If 90% of the clients are taken out by thugs in pinstripe suits, the service keeps operating. If only two are left... the service keeps operating... and can grow again.

Remember, all you need is two to tango.

In retrospect, I think I know what the failing of previous file-sharing programs is. They mention that you can share "music." Instead, they should say you can share "files containing digitized representations of analog waveforms."

Re:Centralized Servers == FAST

[HiThere]

Speed is a problem, but not necessarily insoluble. Centralized systems have inherent vulnerability problems that probably are not soluble.

And this is not restricted to computer programs. Centralized points of control tend to be grabbed by control freaks. (They are the ones most interested in control.) To avoid this, design systems that do not possess this property. It's more difficult, but it sure is safer!

.

Its what you get for supporting a closed network..

[Jagasian]

...support GNUtella instead. Noone can shut down that network, short of shutting down millions of users.

How the FastTrack P2P stack works (with pictures)

[wideangle]

Much like Napster and Gnutella, search results in Morpheus contain the IP addresses of peers sharing the files that match the search criteria, and file downloads are purely peer-to-peer. As is the case with Gnutella, file transfers are via the HTTP protocol. Because of this, each peer is essentially a Web server. With knowledge of the appropriate URLs, Clip2 was able to successfully download files from Morpheus peers using Microsoft Internet Explorer.

A typical Morpheus file download request looks like this:

GET /4431/Martin+Luther+King+Jr.+-
+I+have+a+dream.mp 3 HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.20.31.42:1214
UserAgent: KazaaClient May 7 2001 16:00:44
X-Kazaa-Username: anon
X-Kazaa-Network: MusicCity
X-Kazaa-IP: 102.12.97.42:1214
X-Kazaa-SupernodeIP: 113.103.15.82:1214
Connection: close
X-Kazaa-XferId: 2956456

Upon receiving the above download request, a Morpheus peer sends a response like this:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 4381547
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:43:32 GMT
Server: KazaaClient May 7 2001 15:59:09
Connection: close
Last-Modified: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:31:02 GMT
X-Kazaa-Network: KaZaA
X-Kazaa-IP: 10.20.31.42:1214
X-Kazaa-SupernodeIP: 120.23.123.227:1214
X-KazaaTag: 5=274
X-KazaaTag: 21=128
X-KazaaTag: 4=I have a dream
X-KazaaTag: 6=Martin Luther King Jr.
X-KazaaTag: 14=Speeches
X-KazaaTag: 3=asqK3s/zY2oC4IaGYq3gJYWLcKo=
Content-Type: audio/mpeg

Note the use of metadata headers describing the requested file. Also, note the repeated occurrence of the "Kazaa" name in these headers.

Following the HTTP response, the number of bytes specified in the "Content-length" header is sent from the peer sharing the file to the one who sent the download request, and the connection is closed. [more...]

Re:Too bad

[ZxCv]

But they ARE marketed for non-infringing uses. When's the last time you saw a banner on musiccity.com that said "DOWNLOAD MORPHEUS AND START PIRATING MP3'S TODAY!!"?

Good!

[AndroidCat]

I'm tired of connecting to my ISP and getting KAZAA probed continously for days afterwards by idiots who don't understand that the dynamic IP address has been reassigned.

use IRC =)

[ZaBu911]

IRC networks are something that, I assure, won't be shut down any time soon at all. looking for music? pr0n? TV episodes? turn to the warez networks, like EFNet (irc.prison.net, irc.arcti.ca to name a few) and DALnet (astro.ga.us.dal.net, sniper.tx.us.dal.net). Works well.

Good alternative :-D