Kazaa Admits to Morpheus Shutdown

An Anonymous Coward writes: "KaZaa yesterday admitted to CNET that it was behind the shutout of Morpheus from the FastTrack network. Their reason? The company didn't pay its bills. Still, there has to be more to it than that for KaZaa to cut them off so quickly and unexpectedly, especially since a P2P network's power lies in the size of its audience. There is some weird cat-and-mouse play going on here that can only be damaging to both sides in the upcoming trial against the RIAA and MPAA in California."

Comments

oh, come on...

[pinkUZI]

Why does everything corporate have to be this big conspiracy? If a company wasn't paying its bills is it really all that surrising that they were shut down?

Re:oh, come on...

[edrugtrader]

but they provided free music... they shouldn't have to pay their bills. thus conspiracy.

Re:oh, come on...

[nabucco]

Corporations are secretive by nature and for the most part unaccountable for their actions. So yes, before they chose to announce this, this all was a secret, and we didn't even have an idea that they would claim it happened because of unpaid bills.

Organizations who take drastic actions that affect a wide number of people (hundreds of thousands in this case), and do so in secret without any accountability are prone to spread ideas of some type of conspiracy. When an organization operates in secret, the only way people can guess what is happening with it are through postulation. Thus, these conspiratorial ideas are due more to Kazaa's previous silence than due to people guessing at what had happened.

i think they screwed up bad

[fist_187]

by shutting down morpheus, they just admitted that they have control over their network and users. now they're screwed in terms of legal defense. meanwhile, morpheus switches to gnutella and will probably survive the onslaught.

how ironic...

Re:i think they screwed up bad

[Spankophile]

>morpheus switches to gnutella and will probably survive the onslaught.

Yes, but will they survive the fact that Gnutella suxx0rs.

Re:i think they screwed up bad

[randumb_surfer]

No, not really.

They demonstrated that they can stop large segments of users (such as users using a given client) from using the network.

What they have not shown is that they have control over what files are being transfered over the network. That's the thing that got Napster.

Re:i think they screwed up bad

[mjh]

Ok. But why is that effectively any different? A court can still order them to shut down the network by shutting down morpheus clients, Kazaa clients and grokster clients.

IRC?

[bpalmatv]

Doesn't anyone use IRC anymore? You can get just as much, if not more, on any of the large networks. Bob.

Re:IRC?

[athakur999]

Has IRC grown past the whole "yeah, I got xyz file, what do you have to trade for it?" thing?

Re:IRC?

[ImaLamer]

I think there is an excellent client for people willing to share and download all at once.

Spr Jukebox for mIRC [Windows or Wine.. you're pick]. When you have a channel full of users then you can see who has slots open, you get a flowing list of songs which the user is 'playing'. Very nice. Searching, but then cut and paste. But everything is pretty clear.

If you can read you can actually set up lists of files to get. Since most [all?] commands are in the channel it just plays them and gets the files! You can just download someone's user list and browse it etc.

Like I say, very nice. Development is kinda dropped off but the author has noticed it and might pick it up again. Everything works.

Great for college campuses, no fserve sillyness.

Re:IRC?

[ImaLamer]

I would agree.

But usually the 'groups' which are actually 'channels' who are exclusive get busted. They are active, they work to move files and are usually getting some stuff most people don't. Their piracy sometimes is going towards business solutions.

Many things I've 'observed' is that you can't talk trade in most channels because it starts to get scary for the user. They put up the server and don't want to bother with the people but do want to serve.

Hey they just want you to serve. They are the confidence men of software piracy. False promises and hidden IP's.

Re:IRC?

[ImaLamer]

Where I'm from ratio's aren't allowed.

Trading isn't allowed.

Automatic kick/ban. Privately people may trade files but not in the channel.

Re:IRC?

[ImaLamer]

u'r old school admit it man...

Their future

[shatfield]

Kazaa is just a minute away from getting completely shut down. They've just admitted to the RIAA that it is possible to shut somebody out of their (nasty) proprietary network... putting them into the same boat as Napster, as far as a Judge will be concerned with them.

Mopheus, who is now using the restamped Gnucleus software, is on a true P2P network, and it would be next to impossible to shut them down.

I suspect that Morpheus will be around long after Kazaa is a footnote.

Re:Their future

[SerpentMage]

I think you have put the finger on it. I wonder if Morpheus did not do what they did to get out of the RIAA fiasco.

With GNUTELLA and being based in other places it does become very difficult. BTW I am using the new Morpheus and have to say it is getting better.

Since we are talking conspiracy here is one. Imagine Morpheus buying third party companies on off shore companies. These third companies run "Super Node" GNUTELLA servers. These supernodes enhance the GNUTELLA experience, by caching, etc, etc.

The RIAA sees these super servers and goes after the owners. Immediately the third party companies shut down. But in the same moment another company with a super server starts up. The RIAA has to go through this deal YET AGAIN!!!

Morpheus is in the clear because they only provide a client that connects to an open network. That would be a brilliant strategy...

Re:Their future

[sheldon]

It's not impossible... Just very costly.

Any P2P network has to have a point of insertion. In order for the P2P network to be successful, that point of insertion has to be well advertised. They can't shutdown a small loop of friends, but then a couple of dozen people aren't much of a threat to them so they probably don't care.

So all the RIAA(or whoever) has to do, is keep tabs on the IP addresses being advertised as connection points, and then simply call each individual ISP and have those connections shut down. If they have a lawsuit ruling to support this action, all the easier.

And lest you think moving to a third world country works... see the previous articles on Somolia's ISP shutdown, as well as the spam blocking of Chinese ISPs. All it would take is a ruling by some court in the United States or European Union, and those countries would be effectively cut off.

Costly, but don't think it is impossible.

Re:Their future

[Rogerborg]

• Mopheus, who is now using the restamped Gnucleus software, is on a true P2P network, and it would be next to impossible to shut them down.

Here's the danger.

• It can easily be shown that most Kazaa traffic is copyrighted material. They need to use the Sony VCR defence that there are non-infringing uses and avoid falling into the Napster trap of admitting control over the network.
• They've flat out blown it on the second point, and are completely boned. Morpheus on the Kazaa network was doomed. They were going to get found guilty of contributory infringement for sure.
• Now they're on Gnutella. With the same users, doing the same activities.

Can you see the way this would look to a court? Picture a restaurant where mobsters meet, cleaning their guns and jawing about how many cops they've whacked. The restaurant owners hear that the FBI are filming the restaurant, ready to make a bust. So then they put on blindfolds and earplugs and say "Oh, but now we don't know what our customers are doing. I think we've got a large party of nuns in tonight, I can't really tell with this stuff on."

Pretty weak defence? I think so. And the nasty-nasty is that now Morpheus is just another Gnutella client, so if Morpheus does go down, why should any client - or specifically any client developer - be let off. Because they're not making money, I hear you say. Because it's just like making copies for friends and family. It's fair use.

No it damn well isn't. If I hear one more Slashdotter claim that personal/friends/family copies are "fair use", I will quite seriously bust a gut. Here are the allowable purposes for making a copy of a copyrighted work: (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching. Don't argue this with me, quote a specific case of a court saying that copies for friends and family are OK. Any judge that drew the line in the sand and said that Gnutella was OK because it's not commercial would have the MPAA/RIAA would asking for his or her head on a plate, and I'm not talking rhetorically.

Morpheus joining the Gnutella network is the best move possible for Morpheus - and the worst move possible for Gnutella. This one is going to get ugly.

Re:Their future

[javatips]

I just can't believe the crap from these people. They may have no laws preventing you from anything. But they do requires connections to the outside world.

If enough people gets annoyed by them because they start having to much illegal (from the outsider perspective) activities going thru their node, somebody will successfully pressure their connection provider in raising the cost of the connection or severing it.

They have a short term business case, but in the long run, they will have to abide by somebody else rules.

Re:Their future

[gnovos]

Pretty weak defence? I think so. And the nasty-nasty is that now Morpheus is just another Gnutella client, so if Morpheus does go down, why should any client - or specifically any client developer - be let off. Because they're not making money, I hear you say. Because it's just like making copies for friends and family. It's fair use.

No it damn well isn't. If I hear one more Slashdotter claim that personal/friends/family copies are "fair use", I will quite seriously bust a gut. Here are the allowable purposes for making a copy of a copyrighted work: (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching [publaw.com]. Don't argue this with me, quote a specific case of a court saying that copies for friends and family are OK. Any judge that drew the line in the sand and said that Gnutella was OK because it's not commercial would have the MPAA/RIAA would asking for his or her head on a plate, and I'm not talking rhetorically.


Well, the easy defense would be to find amatuer artists that have put thier work out on gnutella simply becuase they wanted to get thier name out, not to make money. There is no justification for running these amatuer artists out of the market in the name of "spurring innovation".

Re:Their future

[RatFink100]

Kazaa is just a minute away from getting completely shut down. They've just admitted to the RIAA that it is possible to shut somebody out of their (nasty) proprietary network... putting them into the same boat as Napster, as far as a Judge will be concerned with them.

I don't think it's that clearcut. This event has shown that they can deny access to network, it has not shown that they can identify or control what is being shared.

Imagine buying a VCR and discovering it has a secret disabling chip that can be activated remotely by the manufacturer. The manufacturer rents you the VCR rather than selling it and fires off a 'disable' signal if you don't pay your bill. Now Big Media Company comes along and says "You must disable all these VCRs because they are being used to make unauthorised copies of copyright material."

After they stop laughing, the VCR manufacturer tells BMC where to go. They have no way to identify or stop infringement, and they ain't going to kiss goodbye to their customer base on BMC's say-so.

"Ah", says BMC, "but you have shown the technology is possible. It must be possible to add the ability to identify content being copied, and by extension copyright infringement."

"It is", says VCR maker, "but we didn't do that. It's not a 'feature' our customers want. Did you have a point?

And so on - in front of a judge, until somebody runs out of money.

Re:Their future

[racermd]

I'm risking a major flame, here, but...

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on the issue of personal copies being "fair use." As most everyone here will point out, and that courts have determined, time-shifting or media-shifting is most certainly allowable under the fair-use doctrine. Remember the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia in regards to the Rio MP3 players? Remember the Sony Betamax case? Remember the stink about Tivo and other PVRs? These are just 3 examples that I can think of right now (feel free to add, anyone) of how our legal system views personal, fair-use copies.

Besides, this whole thing isn't about fair-use, anyway. It's about control of the distribution networks, physical or otherwise. Don't you think that the RIAA and the MPAA have a little too much at stake to lose control over their profits from distribution? It's not even about the technology. I'm sure that if you asked any of the executives at the RIAA or the MPAA about what they thought of the technology they'd reply favorably, as long as they still had control over it. Until they get a digital distribution system in place for people to access, they're going on every witch-hunt they can muster to shut down the competition. You want to talk antitrust measures? These people aren't even allowing competitors to get started, much less become a threat. That's some real anti-competitive behavior.

I suggest that we attack the problem at the core, not from the outside. We should be allowing the RIAA and the MPAA into everything they want access to. Let them think they have control. Get the distribution system online. Get people to start downloading things from it. Then strip it away from them like the children they're acting like. Shut them out of the network like Kaaza just did with Morpheus. Get access to everything then shut them out.

My point is that we've proven we can't defeat this menace head-on. And certainly not in the numbers we've been "attacking" them with lately. Too much of the US is perfectly happy getting their music, movies, TV, news, etc., in a highly polished, sanitized form. Sure, you can find out what's going on if you dig a little bit and do some homework. But who's got the time, anymore?

Granted, the RIAA and the MPAA aren't stupid by any means. But they need to eat some humble pie, IMNSHO. I want to listen to my music on mp3 (160+ or hq variable bitrates). I want to record TV shows on a hard disk to watch at *my* convenience. I'm not a slave to the technology, but I may wind up that way in the future if these companies have their way with the legal system. Under fair-use, I'm allowed to all of this. If they'd have anything to do about it, I'd have to pay each time I wanted to listen to anything. That's just not cool.

Enough of my rantings for one day. I still have some real work to do.

Re:Their future

[Rogerborg]

• As most everyone here will point out, and that courts have determined, time-shifting or media-shifting is most certainly allowable under the fair-use doctrine

Ah, ya got me. But look, the point is that in all of these judgements, the court was very careful to restrict itself to specific cases.

VCR's, for example. The allowable use in that case was very specifically making a recording of publically broadcast content, watching it once, then erasing it. Sony had to go to some lengths to demonstrate that users were not creating libraries, or trading tapes. Rio got off on the technicality that it makes copies from computers, not directly from the original digital music recording (so the infringement is done on the PC, not on the Rio).

The danger is that we get complacent about Gnutella or open source sharing networks in general. There is nothing in case law that supports the view that sharing copies is fair use, nor even that ripping a CD to mp3 is fair use. Note tht past statements of personal opinion by executives do not constitute case law, nor are they immune from historical revisionism, nor arguments that the ballgame has changed since they were made.

Here's what I'm saying: assume all P2P networks are infringing until we prove otherwise. We'll have to fight long and hard to prove it. I honestly don't think we can do it. If you believe otherwise, find some case law to back that up. I don't think you will.

Re:Their future

[Fjord]

I never thought people were claiming it was fair use to give their friends and family recording. I've heard fair use applied to changing formats: e.g. from CD to MP3 or DVD to MPEG. I've also heard people apply the Audio Home Recording Act which says that "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings". Basically saying there is no copyright infringment if a consumer noncommercially makes a copy.

It's possible that there are mixed up people saying "Fair Use" when they mean "Audio Home Recording Act", but that doesn't make the actions of music file sharers illegal.

Re:Their future

[Fjord]

And then the RIAA gets the WTO to put trade sanctions on the countries hosting these companies until they change their laws. Their economies shrink, people loose their jobs, some go starving, all so that we can trade files.

Re:Their future

[gus goose]

Here are the allowable purposes for making a copy of a copyrighted work: (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching

But, copyright does not mean controlled .... GPL is Copyrighted to the author, but freely distributable copyable (within the bounds of keeping the GPL). Thus, transferring the source code of the Linux Kernel (Copyright to Linus) over Gnutella is perfectly legal..... he says so... gus

Re:Their future

[shyster]

Because it's just like making copies for friends and family. It's fair use. No it damn well isn't. If I hear one more Slashdotter claim that personal/friends/family copies are "fair use", I will quite seriously bust a gut. Here are the allowable purposes for making a copy of a copyrighted work: (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching [publaw.com]. Don't argue this with me, quote a specific case of a court saying that copies for friends and family are OK.

Not to mention the technicalities (already covered by other /.ers) of the language such as, let me introduce another argument. I'll title this argument, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, aka the DAT tax.

You see, when the RIAA was upset about Digital Audio Tapes being used to pilfer their music, they came to an agreement with the consumer electronics industry. The RIAA agreed to make noncommercial copying a non-infringing act (not exactly, but we'll get into that a bit later) in exchange for royalty payments and limits on serial copying.

Now the bit about non infringement, section 1008. You see, it wasn't actually made non-infringing explicitly, as in the original copyright law language for fair use. It, instead, says that "...no action may be brought under this [Copyright] title alleging infringement of copyright based on...the noncommercial use by a consumer...making digital music recordings...". A might bit different, and good arguing point for high paid lawyers.

Now, the arguing points. For one, Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording device" as:

"...any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for--
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds."

Whether a P2P program falls under that category, I leave as an exercise to the reader, lawyers, and judges.

A more damning definition comes in subsection (4B). A digital audio recording medium..."...does not include any material object that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases." That's a tough one to argue against.

There's many other arguments that can be made both for and against Napster clones for falling under the AHRA. Napster, eveidently, failed to convince their judge of the applicability. IANAL, and therefore do not get paid to research this, so I'll leave it to interested parties to delve further.

But, to get back on point, the RIAA can't sue for noncommercial copying of analog or digital music, as defined by the AHRA. So you can add that to your list of fair use items...and have publaw.com update their section if they don't mention the AHRA.

Re:Their future

[swillden]

Just keep in mind, when NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 Billion to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300C. The Russians used a pencil.

Urban Legend

Re:Their future

[mpe]

But, copyright does not mean controlled ....

But major publishing companies want it to mean control, hence we have DVD region codes, fuss about DRM, etc.

GPL is Copyrighted to the author, but freely distributable copyable (within the bounds of keeping the GPL)

Not quite GPL retains full copyright, it simply states the conditions for redistribution. In a great many cases these restrictions are not espcially "costly", in other situations such as someone wishing to use GPL code in a proprietary project they can be...

Re:Their future

[gnovos]

on those searches were you looking for "indy band new promo music" or "brittany spears"? No wonder you found pirated music...

Re:Their future

[SerpentMage]

But can you stop a creating a company and then hosting servers? I could do this in the US. I just need to keep creating companies and then shutting them down. There is no law against this in the US or anywhere. The RIAA would have to constantly track... That is the point. If this is calculated into the equation then it could be very profitable.

That's a case of intrusion...

[shankark]

"...Zennstrom did not provide details on how the Morpheus software could have been shut down as a result of the fee dispute. StreamCast has said that Kazaa BV was able to change settings stored deep inside Morpheus users' computers as they logged on to the file-trading network. "

Isn't this a case of intrusion into the user's computer. Wonder if they can do that.... I mean, like if its fair or not...

Re:That's a case of intrusion...

[Buran]

Even if it isn't trespass under the law (is it? They've probably weaseled their way out of any such charges with some disclaimer or other in their licensing agreement; I haven't read it, as I don't use their software, and now never will, but it's trespass to me.)

If you want to change my settings, ask me first. If I think it's OK, I'll let you. If not, I won't. There's a reason I don't allow any automatic updating of my software: abuse of automatic configuration utilities by people like these guys. Too bad. It's a neat technology, but it's gotten a bad rap from abusers like StreamCast to the point where even I don't trust even the companies who claim to play fair and have never been proved not to.

Re:That's a case of intrusion...

[phyxeld]

I wonder if the vx2 spyware installed by AudioGalaxy is "fair". Lets see, it sends home comprehensive data about your browsing habbits, right down to data entered in forms on any website, and it randomly opens popup's for IT'S advertisers on random (or not so random) sites you visit. Fun.

Almost all of the easy p2p options now come with spyware. Morph, KaZaa, Grokster, they're all making money installing hidden software on users' computers. And denying it until they get caught. And swearing not to do it again. And doing it again.

Re:That's a case of intrusion...

[Nick Number]

Almost all of the easy p2p options now come with spyware. Morph, KaZaa, Grokster, they're all making money installing hidden software on users' computers.

Spyware in Morpheus? Do you have a cite for that?

Re:That's a case of intrusion...

[phyxeld]

Spyware in Morpheus? Do you have a cite for that?

Well, I've heard it rumored quite a few times, but now I just did some research and it seems nobody has been able to prove that morpheus had spyware. So I stand (sort of) corrected. I say sort-of because there was unexplained suspicious activity from the program (.dat files containing user's data that morpheus shouldn't be storing, etc) and because the program itself did (as admitted on the morpheus website) allow someone to change their users' registry settings. That alone makes the software unsafe and almost spyware-ish. Bottomline is, I still wouldn't trust the company. (and, afaik, running any fasttrack client runs some KaZaA code, and deceptive advertising is their whole bussiness model)

Re:That's a case of intrusion...

[Rogerborg]

• • Kazaa BV was able to change settings stored deep inside Morpheus users' computers as they logged on to the file-trading network. "
  Isn't this a case of intrusion into the user's computer

At the risk of Karma Death through Redundancy, this is pure FUD. What's happening is that Morpheus client is connecting to the Kazaa authentication servers. The server says "Go away". The client sets a flag that says "I've been told to go away".

That's factually the same as what Morpheus are saying. They're just spinning it as some sinister Dark Side plot, with you as the victim and Kazaa as the bad guys. Consider the source, huh?

Proving FastTrack isn't true P2P

[j_rhoden]

And by locking Morepheus out of the network, Kazaa proved that the network isn't really a true P2P network, and that you can shut it down if order to by a court of law. Good job guys...

Re:Proving FastTrack isn't true P2P

[jordan]

SMTP is P2P. HTTP is P2P. NNTP is P2P. The internet? P2P. Our nationwide telephone switching system? Woops, P2P too.

You mean fully distributed, not P2P. And I don't think anyone claims it, except for Gnutella and its variants.

--jordan

Re:Proving FastTrack isn't true P2P

[Shrubbman]

And by locking Morepheus out of the network, Kazaa proved that the network isn't really a true P2P network, and that you can shut it down if order to by a court of law. Good job guys... No, it's still true P2P, it's just not truely decentralized, which I'm sure is what you meant anyway

Re:Proving FastTrack isn't true P2P

[multipartmixed]

NNTP *can* be P2P. It's been awhile (10 years?) since I've developed anything that groks NNTP, but trying grepping the RFC for "IHAVE" and "SENDME" and try disagreeing with me.

Damaging to them or covering their own ass?

[dave-fu]

"Your honor, we publically stated that we cut them off for non-payment but the _real_ reason we terminated their feed into our systems is because they refused to respect the rights of copyright holders. And doggone it, we just can't abide by that!"
See also: AOL vs. Aimster...

Was it quick?

[Hacksaw]

Do we really know how long Morpheus has been in arrears with KaZaa? Maybe it's been months. If KaZaa is professional, they wouldn't be telling everyone and their cousin that Morpheus is being a deadbeat. It would be harder for Morpheus to pay if they start losing customers due to a bad rep.

I thought Gnutella was done

[saridder]

I was part of the working group for the next generatiopn of Gnutella about 1 1/2 years ago, and I thought that we came to the conclusion that Gnutella couldn't support itself once it became too big. The 2^n problem.

When was Gnutella brought back? Anything new change in terms of the P2P scheme?

Re:I thought Gnutella was done

[Glass of Water]

see this article for a good explanation of why Gnutella is not O(N^2).

not to start a boring war, or anything.

j.n.

Re:I thought Gnutella was done

[Adam Fisk]

The most advanced Gnutella clients are almost identical to the FastTrack system. FastTrack was coded off of the Gnutella model. It's basically just a pumped up old Gnutella, and that's exactly what the newer Gnutella clients are.

Once again, folks, the Gnutella protocol is not a static entity. At this point it's really an evolving set of the original protocol and extensions.

In short, Gnutella is where the action is. It's an open protocol with a great deal of development among the client developers as well as the academic community. Many of the clients are also open source, providing a rich overall platform for innovation. The original protocol with all of the extensions has also become quite complex. The design, I assure you, no longer "sucks."

If you're interested, check out the center for active Gnutella development at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/

Thanks.

Adam Fisk
LimeWire LLC

Re:I thought Gnutella was done

[kesuki]

It can support itself, there have been a ton of improvements.
1. bandwith limitation. Say server X wants to be part of Gnutella and has a T-1, but wants to cap to 6K/second to avoid costly bandwith when they're not actually actively searching for files. All the best gnutella clients have bandwith caps both up and down stream.
2. cached server locations. When you start downloading a file the gnutella client now can cache the address so that even if you loose connection via hubs you can still put in a request to download the file as long as they're still at the same ip and are still running gnutella.
3. shotgun downloads. When files of the exact same size (optionally name too) are found within your search result it is possible to break up the download positions and download from 2-3 even 4 sources at a time. This would work much more effectively if they used MD5 sums instead of file size Or name.
4. ignore search requests. It is now possible for a gnutella client to 'ignore' search results when the number of max uploads has been hit. So a 'busy' server can simply ignore people who ask for a file.
5. the library grows exponentially for small bandwith hits. I can sustain 4 connections for only 3/K sec in both directions and this will provide around 300 gigs of file swapping capacity. However I can sustain 10 connections for 6K/second and get almost 1.2 TB of searchable files. I can flakely connect to between 12-24 servers to achieve a DB from 1TB to 7TB. Currently my upstream cap is 25KB/sec but as I'm on a shared cable modem network I find that I am practically limited to about 7-9KB/sec due to packet loss from collisions. At least at the size packets gnutella uses.
Currently I set my minimum direct connections to 6 because then it wastes the least amount of bandwith looking for new servers. I also seem to have attracted some high file size users because I now have 1 TB available from 6 connections. then again I am sharing 20 gigs. BTW I am not on p2p much as I prefer the quality control that one can exert by making a 300 MB DivX of a 24 minute anime episode. Done right a DivX looks much cleaner than SVHS and approaches DVD quality. I don't like the low grade 30-60 MB an ep stuff that is floating on p2p.

When Free Music Fanatics Form A Firing Squad...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it looks like they stand in a circle!

Maybe Morpheus was just sharing the Kazaa software

[jp93023]

Why pay for a software license when you can just share the goods for nothing? Kazaa just doesn't get it!

Money

[inerte]

Still, there has to be more to it than that for KaZaa to cut them off so quickly and unexpectedly, especially since a P2P network's power lies in the size of its audience.

From Kazaa's homepage:

"Morpheus users - Come on over to our place"

Kazaa has spyware, that's where their money come from. For them, any increase on the number of people using their program is good, and NOT using Morpheus.

New Morpheus..

[DCram]

Steve Griffin StreamCast/Morpheus CEO
"This unprovoked attack is being carefully investigated, as it appears that federal laws may have been violated. We are still attempting to discover who would want to eliminate the community of millions of consumers who are using the Morpheus software product to connect with other users around the world."

Because of these attacks there is a new version of Morpheus that you must download in order to use the P2P system. They state in the message that this software was forced to be released early and I can say that the new software isn't what I was expecting. At this point in the P2P lifecycle I don't believe that this is doing any good.

Wheather or not MusicCity is going to press charges against the attacks that rendered software useless this comes at a bad time. Any company that forces another companys software to go belly must be looked at closely.

Link

heh...

[GodHead]

Quote: "The company didn't pay its bills."

I think it's quite funny to see a bit of greed from a company dedicated to "sharing".

Well they might be pissed off

[Edmund Blackadder]

By the huge "so spyware" sign on morpheus' webpage. Because Morpheus is rightfully seen as a better software to have than Kazaa, they probably understood that if morpheus was on the same network, people will always prefer it.

The Real Reason: Cydoor

[hndrcks]

Kazaa / Grokster / whatever "upgraded" the software last week to REQUIRE installation of the Cydoor spyware junk. Morpheus has always committed to "no spyware."

There is a solution for those wanting to use Grokster but not have the Cydoor crap:

http://www.cexx.org/cydoor.htm

This is a good thing for Morpheus

[kontos]

This whole situation sousds a lot like Morpheus escaping a burning building. Kaazaa has got to be on their last leg. All of the back-office wheeling and dealing can mean only one thing. They're desperate. Either the courst are about to shut them down, or thay are running out of money. Either way. the FastTrack software is about to collapse. Morpheus did the right thing by seperating themselves from that whole mess. If they didn't pay thier bills...It jsut tells me that they saw this coming for a while.

Perhaps becuase StreamCast was American?

[instinctdesign]

There is some weird cat-and-mouse play going on here that can only be damaging to both sides in the upcoming trial against the RIAA and MPAA in California.

It might have something to do with the fact that Morpheus, owned by the American company StreamCast, was perhaps the most likely of the three to get convicted under United States' law. Thusly, they were the best target and perhaps the biggest liability of each of the companies running FastTrack. With them, and no other United States localized company running FastTrack, the network is a bit more secure since going after the others would be meddling in other country's laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.

Kazaa true p2p?

[schmaltz]

Whether Kazaa / Morpheus / Grokster / Fasttrack is true p2p is in debate, and mostly this question is due to Kazaa's shutting Morpheus down. Without any other facts, Fasttrack's status as true p2p isn't disproven, but it could just as easily be a software switch or "lease" renewal.

When my LimeWire client first connects, where does it go to get IPs of other peers? A central server. Does this make Gnutella not p2p? I don't think so.

When my Grokster client first starts up, it also connects to an IP within a relatively small range -a central server (ethereal tells me this much.) When Morpheus clients connect to the same central servers, they are probably being identified as Morpheus clients and being denied the list of peer IPs, and whatever authorization Kazaa's built in to their protocol.

Re:Kazaa true p2p?

[Ewan]

When limewire connects it goes not to a central server, but another limewire client. Limewire happens to provide 4 or 5 default client ips to connect to (router1.gnuetta.org, router2, router3, etc if i remember) but if 1 or all of those 5 were to go down, then you could type in a replacement yourself which you could find from a website. With morpheus/kazaa etc, you can't change the IP you connect to first.

Ewan

Re:Kazaa true p2p?

[schmaltz]

Those 'router' machines are central servers, providing peer IPs upon startup. My linux limewire client shows the following "Quick Connect hosts"--

router.limewire.com:6346
connect1.gnutellanet.c om:6346
connect2.gnutellanet.com:6346
connect3.g nutellanet.com:6346
connect4.gnutellanet.com:6346

I know that, yes, from a protocol and topology standpoint, these are "peers" in a technical sense.

But they don't seem to be filesharing p2p peers, as their only mission seems to be to bootstrap clients into the p2p network by giving them IPs of other filesharing clients and supernodes. On the other hand, if a gnutella user knows an IP of a currently running client, s/he can manually key that in and get bootstrapped. Otherwise, and without a central server to offer IPs of other nodes, a *new* node to the network is unconnected.

LimeWire seems to remember peer IPs from previous sessions, as I just deleted the startup server IPs from the config and restarted it, and it has no trouble connecting to gnutella.

Re:Kazaa true p2p?

[mpe]

With morpheus/kazaa etc, you can't change the IP you connect to first.

You probably could, just that it is harder than with a GNUtella client which explicitally has an option to do it.The defaults for KaZaa will be either in a registry key or in the executable somewhere...

Bad for Kaaza... good for Morpheus

[javatips]

I believe Kaaza shot themself in the foot.

They showed to thr RIAA that they control the network in some way (they can shut it down and manipulate some registry settings) (even if they may not be able to control content right now).

They tried to make people switch from a competitor software which was more popular in a very aggresive way. (I for one downloaded Kaaza after the shutdown... However I'm back on Morpheus now). People will not like this.

Now if Morpheus is able to reclaim it' users (it should be easy because they do include spyware), the FastTrack network will be amputated millions of users.

It's good for Morpheus... If they survive a lost (if they loose)against the RIAA, their network is now completely decentralized (thank' to gnutella). Which is a good thing against further lawsuit. However, in the same event, Kaaza and Grokster will loose their network and will have to build a new one on another protocol.

It's a win-win for Gnutella... Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit... Many more millions of users on the network.

Re:Bad for Kaaza... good for Morpheus

[Karen_Frito]

You said:

Now if Morpheus is able to reclaim it' users (it should be easy because they do include spyware), the FastTrack network will be amputated millions of users.

I replied:

No, Morpheus -does not- include spyware. They state this publically and half the reason that Morpheus is better than Kaaza is that Morpheus does NOT include spyware.

Kazaa & spyware -- why support them?

[jerryasher]

Kazaa was involved with putting spyware on your system.

What is they do that anyone finds sufficient value in to support anything they do?

All about the bling-bling

[liquidsin]

"MusicCity (also known as StreamCast Networks) has failed to pay any amounts due to Kazaa BV under the parties' license agreement"

How will the RIAA / MPAA / Software industry look upon this, with Kazaa adimitting to making money off of their copyrights? (I know that's flawed logic, but the RI/MPAA cares not for your 'logic') Kazaa just admitted that they're in this for the cash. Sure, it's just a license to software that can be used to trade *anything* (not just copyrighted material), but they just admitted that they can and do control who gets on the network AND that they're making cash off of it. They just drew the bullseye on their own forehead.

Re:All about the bling-bling

[liquidsin]

I think what you're going for is a little different though. No magazine is making money by distributing a movie. They may discuss a movie, or review it, or interview the actors, or even give away the plot. But it's still not the whole movie. And note that in mags all of the still pics of a movie will tell you exactly who owns the right to that picture. But (as far as hollywood is concerned) p2p networks are giving away their products. And now, they're admitting to taking money for this service. All bad.

Re:All about the bling-bling

[elefantstn]

So, you needed this statement to find out KaZaa is out to make money? What did you think they were, a non-profit charity? I really don't think this changes anything.

An interesting side note.

[einer]

I was running Morpheus and waiting for some very large downloads to complete. I never turned my box off. I'm still downloading the same files just as quickly, but am unable to search the network.

Egos Involved

[digger3001]

I'm betting there were some egos involved here.

Morpheus didn't pay the bills and KaZaa called them on it. Morpheus' CEO sounds like a real egomaniac from his comments in the news and on their website and I'm betting he figured he'd wait til they turned him off and then blame THEM and try to make KaZaa look like the assholes.

Obviously he knew about non-payed bills and the apparent chance of being shutdown otherwise they wouldn't have has a Gnutella client all developed and ready for release within a few days.

If someone at Morpheus is reading this pass it on to your CEO and tell him that treating partners like this doesn't make anyone want to work with your company and makes him look like a prick.

I have no affiliation with either company and am strictly speaking as an outsider having dealt with people and situations like this. Is anyone else sick of this ego crap?

It's not the reason, it's the method.

[AltGrendel]

Not paying bills is certainly a justified reason for shutting down a service. But I don't like the idea that they used a back-door to change user settings.

Re:It's not the reason, it's the method.

[discogravy]

what were they going to do, say "please don't steal music^H^H^H^H^H^H and just pay us?"

The RIAA/MPAA has conclusively proved (to lawmakers in their pocket, anyway,) that you can't trust people to do the right thing, and you must force them, by any means necessary.

Re:It's not the reason, it's the method.

[Rogerborg]

• I don't like the idea that they used a back-door to change user settings.

It's OK, it's only an idea, not an actual fact. All Kazaa are doing is refusing to authenticate Morpheus clients. The "setting deep in your machine" that gets set is the flag in the client that reminds it that it's been told to get lost.

Always consider the source. Morpheus is a for-profit organisation that's (allegedly but credibly) refused to honour its contract with Kazaa. There's a perfect innoculous translation of their rant against Kazaa that matches the facts. You don't have to buy their FUD, unless you really, really want to.

Re:Eee Gads! I though it was non-shut-down-able...

[liquidsin]

giFT is an open source ft client, and they're also developing the openFT network that they hope will become the new standard for p2p file trading. It's loosely based on the FastTrack network used by kazaa but it's all open sourced.

morons

[slapshot]

my favorite quote...
"...especially since a P2P network's power lies in the size of its audience"

obviously not...if you pull the plug

Gnutella will not suck

[Juiblex]

If Morpheus can use the Gnutella network together with all their aparatus of media file meta-information, and multiple segmented downloading, and if they use the hyper-cube network approach, rather than the tree one, it will simply rocks, and no one will be able to stop it when it begins.

Re:Gnutella will not suck

[Skirwan]

If Morpheus can use the Gnutella network together with all their aparatus of media file meta-information, and multiple segmented downloading, and if they use the hyper-cube network approach, rather than the tree one, it will simply rocks, and no one will be able to stop it when it begins.

And if pigs can fly, and I can ride one, and they fly me to hell, and it just froze over, and we all have ice cream...

--
Damn the Emperor!

Re:Gnutella will not suck

[zaffir]

The only problem with Morpheus using their own cool tech is that... well, they have none. They just put interface buttons in Gnucleus and called it their own. Hell, they didn't even bother to change all the dialog boxes containing info such as "please restart Gnucleus" to "Please restart Morpheus". Ever wonder why Kazaa and Morpheus looked exactly the same? Its because they were. Morpheus is basically just selling add space in a program they've renamed as their own.

Re:Gnutella will not suck

[talonyx]

"And if pigs can fly, and I can ride one, and they fly me to hell, and it just froze over, and we all have ice cream..."

I really need to stop reading Slashdot while on codeiene.....

What 'bout GiFT????

[Zeeto]

There's a project called GiFT, (acronym to GNU Internet File Transfer) project, that's trying to implement a FastTrack like protocol (not using their network). I'm really excited with it, but it development is quite slow...
Maybe they can implement a real alternative to the proprietary FastTrack, or to the old-and-slow Gnutella.

Re:What 'bout GiFT????

[jonathan_ingram]

There's a lot of violence inside you...

The Windows port is being worked on, but won't be released until they've had the chance to finalise the protocol, using the UNIX-based users as testers. That way they can be sure that the protocol will scale properly before it's massively stressed.

Re:What 'bout GiFT????

[Genom]

I believe the acronym is Generic interface to FastTrack =)

Before we get too X files...

[Rogerborg]

• "MusicCity has failed to pay any amounts due to Kazaa BV under the parties' license agreement"

Note the "any". You don't need rocket science to work out that you can only give people the benefit of the doubt for so long before deciding that you're being scammed and are never going to see one penny. Ironic, nes pas, that Kazaa kick of Morpheous for freeloading on their work and IP, when the vast majority of Kazaa's income is coming from serving ads to people making copies of copyrighted material (self included, I'm not being pejorative)?

• "[Morpheus] has said that Kazaa BV was able to change settings stored deep inside Morpheus users' computers as they logged on to the file-trading network"

Who there, conspiracy theorists. The "setting" is question is probably just the "bool bClientIsAuthorised" flag based on the reply from the Kazaa authentication servers. There's nothing sinister going on here. This is the way the Kazaa network is supposed to work (now). Authorised clients paying for connection to the Kazaa authentication servers. Since they went authentication to throw off giFT, Kazaa has been a client-server/P2P hybrid. Maybe Morpheus didn't get that, but I'm sure the giFT team can explain it to them.

• StreamCast's Griffin conceded last week that there had been some dispute over licensing terms for the peer-to-peer software. But he said that a wholesale shutdown of the Morpheus network would have violated the terms of his contract with Kazaa BV. In a message to Morpheus users this weekend, Griffin pointed fingers at Kazaa BV and warned people not to use the company's software.

Translation: "Those bastards actually make you pay to play! I mean, they expect us to hold up our end of the contract as well as them holding up theirs. What's with that?"

• The RIAA reacted to this development quickly last week. "We have been saying all along that they control the system, and this proves it," RIAA Senior Vice President Matt Oppenheim said in a statement last week.

Sure, or you could have subpoena'd the giFT team to tell you that... ;-)

What you absolutely must understand is that Morpheus is a commercial service. The "100% spyware free!" boast was a marketing plot. They thought they could make money off of freeloaders (like me, remember?). Trouble is, Kazaa had the same idea, and Kazaa own the keys to that particular part of the Magic Kingdom.

Now Morpehsu is going to try and make money off of Gnutella. Well, here's a pretty pickle. Does the Gnutella network want a for-profit service in there, attracting the ire of the MPAA and their bought politicians (and judges who, lest we forget, have an eye on promotion to the Supremes, and can tell which way the political winds are shifting)? I doubt it. Can Gnutella do anything about it? Of course not. They can't pull a Kazaa and block Morpheus, either by force majeur or through obscurity.

Screw who said what to who between Kazaa and Morpheus. That's yesterday's news, it was doubtless all about the bottom line, and given the characters of the organisations in question (proprietary, commercial, legally dubious), we simply can't expect anything like honest answers from anybody. It's "Morpheus versus Gnutella", or "Morpheus with Gnutella" that's the issue now. This is shaping up to be the first big test of how well open source can survive in a hostile environment, with layer upon layer of juicy morality quandaries to pick over.

Is it wrong for Morpheus to "freeload" off of Gnutella? But they're license compliant, and they bring a whole lot of content with them. And the whole Gnutella network is - de facto - already about freeloading. But making profit off of it just fuels the MPAA/RIAA's law-buying machine...

This one is going to run and run. I for one am going to settle down with some popcorn and enjoy the (truly) free show. ;-)

Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Von Rex]

There's a name missing in this debate: Gnucleus.

Some of you might not realize the depths of sleaze to which Morpheus has descended. To make their latest "preview version", they took an open source Gnutella client named Gnucleus (http://www.gnucleus.com), added their branding and annoying popup ads, and redistributed it as the new version of Morpheus.

They did not even contact the developers of Gnucleus before they ripped off their software. And they ban anyone from the Music City chat room who even mentions the existence of Gnucleus.

The "developers" of Morpheus are not people who deserve your loyalty or concern. My advice to everyone is to immediately delete Morpheus and and install Gnucleus. It's the same program but without the advertising and popups. And by doing so you'll be showing a little respect to the people who actually wrote the program, rather than the pieces of shit who renamed it and are attempting to pass it off as their own.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[inerte]

Other than not contacting John Marshall (or Swabby, main Gnucleus developer), what evil have they done? They do provide the source code, and when installing the new Preview Edition, even the GPL itself is presented.

I think they were suddenly disconnected from Fastrack and had to move so fast to not lose their userbase base of millions, that quick, but sadly, badly done, actions had to be taken.

Give them another week to clarify things, first for them, later for the community. I can only imagine the big mess that's currently happening on Morpheus offices... I don't think that bashing will help now.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[lifey]

Aparently, for all the ./ people that are such OSS and GPL advocates, that you don't seem to understand that they aren't STEALING anything. They took the open source code, modified it for their needs, relabeled it, and distributed it WITH the source code.

Now granted, Gnucleus might be 'better' software, depending on your point of view. I think it was a great idea for a company that had to make due in a pinch. If the developers don't like it, don't give away the source. Go to work at M$ or some other 'evil' corporate software maker.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[rufo]

Damn my mod points to hell, I've got to respond here. By putting their client in the GPL, anyone can take their software and make changes to it, as long as the source is posted, right?

This means a company like Morpheus can do *exactly* what they're doing right now: take a GPL client, re-brand it, and post it up on the web. They have the source there on their page. They are not breaking any rules at all. They don't have to notify the Gnucleus people. They don't have to keep it ad-free. They can add spy-ware to the installer if they choose (although Morpheus has a no-spyware policy). By putting your software in the GPL, you run the risk of somebody doing this.

Now, I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for the Gnucleus people. I'd be ticked off too if somebody did that to me. I'm just saying that quite technically, there's nothing wrong here.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Rogerborg]

• They did not even contact the developers of Gnucleus before they ripped off their software

OK, deep breaths. They are 100% compliant with the GPL license, as I think the reporting debacle on here showed. Do we say that every commercial X/GNU/Linux distro "rips off" Linus, and GNU and KDE/Gnome and a whole load of other developers? No, we say that they promote them, bring them to a wider audience, support and develop them, and contribute their revenues back to the whole.

So let's give Morpheus enough rope to hang themselves. If they spend their ad money developing the client, and if they keep releasing source, and if they don't bring an assload of hurt to the whole project, then they'll be providing the same service as a commercial linux distro.

Do I think that'll happen? No, based on their past behaviour, I think they'll fork off a version that will refuse to serve content to other Gnutella clients while still leeching from them, flat out refuse to release the source, and bring the Men In Black to the party. But let's give them a little time to prove their guilt please.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Telastyn]

Wait. I'd assume with a name like gnucleus that they use the GPL, and thus will require derived works to include the GPL, along with source code. I'll also assume Morpheus does not, and is thus *not* "abiding the by the f'ing licensing!!!"

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[elefantstn]

You'd be wrong to assume that, they do provide source. Someone else already posted a link in this thread.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Lumpy]

ACK, I see they are now abiding by the GPL.. so there's no beef.

It's cool that they try to abide by the GPL from Gnucleus, it's how the GPL is supposed to work.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[mcrbids]

Actually, the funny part of the GPL is that you don't even have to post the source anywhere - just make it available to the party(ies) you sell it to!

Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, and Morpheus are all being "nice guys" by making the source downloadable from their sites - there is NO REQUIREMENT that they do this.

So, be thankful!

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[RatFink100]

You assume all that - because it's quicker to assume than actually click on a link and check.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Von Rex]

Oh? You've never been "ripped off" by someone but not had legal recourse because of brinksmanship with the fine print?

"Ripping off" is a subjective term, but I still submit that this is exactly what the Morpheus team did to the Gnucleus team. They took their software, added nothing to it, actually made it worse, and are trying to pass it off as entirely their own work. They did not give proper credit. They did not contact the Gnucleus team. And they actually go to the lengths of banning anyone who brings up Gnucleus from their chat room, in a hamfisted attempt to suppress the truth.

This may not fit the criteria of "ripping off" to you, but it does to me. And it certainly means I don't see the slightest reason to support Morpheus in any of their endeavors. They might not be quite as sleazy as Kazaa, but they're close.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Von Rex]

There's two things that make them pieces of shit.

1. They don't give credit to the developers of Gnucleus, who did ALL of the work for their new "version" of Morpheus. They added nothing to the program other than their own popup ads.

2. They kick and ban anyone who mentions Gnucleus from their chat room. This is an active attempt to suppress the fact that they took the code from Gnucleus. It's ungrateful, it's tacky, and it's lame.

I bring up these points because I'm angry about the disrespect shown to the Gnucleus developers and I'm tired of seeing Music City portrayed as a sympathetic company. They're slime.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Von Rex]

There's ways to do these things. Mentioning somewhere prominent where you got the code would help. Not instructing your ops to ban anyone from their chat server who mentions Gnucleus would be even better.

It seems pretty clear to me that the Morpheus team has no interest in giving proper credit to the Gnucleus team, that they actually want to do just the opposite -- silence anyone who mentions who wrote the actual code.

It also seems clear to me that there's no reason to use Morpheus anymore. Why should you, when you can use Gnucleus and not have to put up with their ads and popups?

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[Von Rex]

Sure. I agree that "quite technically", as long as they keep their available source current, what Morpheus did was legal. But I never accused them of breaking the GPL, as you and most everyone else in the thread seems to be focusing on.

What I accused them of was being sleazy, deceptive, and utterly undeserving of the loyalty of the "community". In short, of being assholes. After all, there's all kinds of ways to screw someone over and do it legally.

They took the work of someone else, wrote their name on it, and tried to pass it off as their own. They added nothing but spamware. They are actively hostile to the original developers, banning anyone from their server who even mentions their site. They deserve no one's sympathy or good wishes.

If you want to use such software, go with Gnucleus. Go with the people who actually wrote the code and who aren't spamming you with ads.

Re:Delete Morpheus, install Gnucleus

[mpe]

They did not even contact the developers of Gnucleus before they ripped off their software.

The GPL does not require such notification. Simply that if you distribute derived work of a GPL program you must provide the source. AFAIK they are making the source to their program available.

Speedy Resolution

[crow_t_robot]

Gee Whiz! I hope that all of this gets resolved before the new Britney Spears album comes out. What a predicament!

They control the authentication -- NOT the network

[klieber]

Kazaa, et al DOES NOT have control over the network. The only thing they control is the authentication mechanism. Once you're authenticated, you have complete, unfettered access to the network and Kazaa has no control over what you do/don't share.

With Napster, it was different since Napster *did* control what files were/weren't shared. With fast track, however, all they can control is whether or not you get on the network. So (and IANAL) as long as they can show that there are legitimate uses for the fast track network, I will be surprised if they get shut down.

To liken it to the Betamax court case that everyone likes to toss around, Sony had control over whether or not you could buy a VCR, but once you owned that VCR, Sony had no control over what you could or couldn't record.

smells a little fishy to me

[Rackemup]

I hate it when companies play these stupid little PR games, you never know what's really going on in the background.

I do know one thing, Kazaa will NEVER be installed on my machine... spyware watching my internet activity PLUS the admitted ability to modify settings on a users machine at will? no thanks.

The "new" morpheus may not be as easy to use as the original but at least Morpheus has never modified my registry settings on its own.

Did u see kazaa web page after?

[ZaneMcAuley]

They advertised "Morpheus users come on over" on the front page , but they took that down after a while.

Isn't that the point?

[digitalpeer]

Isn't this the point of open source? The ability to reuse code? To save yourself from reinventing the wheel? Or is there some big respect thing hidden behind the curtains that must be played out to the originators of the source code? This would seperate you from making "ripped off" software as opposed to.....

Re:Eee Gads! I though it was non-shut-down-able...

[jellybear]

I use giFT. It's coming along nicely. Still a few snags now and then, but quite good. It's already better than gnutella, imho.

It's not impossible... Just very costly.

[dpilot]

How costly is it, really?

Besides, there's another approach. Plus they can just take a lawyer and go to ISPs and start talking about filtering incoming connections requests.

At least cable providers don't like incoming connections at all, so they won't need much prodding. Especially once congress is done discarding the CLECS, the Baby Bells don't like DSL at all, so they may not take too much prodding. There go the high-bandwidth users, the ones people would prefer to download from. Next start going after the biggest dialup outfits, like Earthlink.

The key point here is that it's not a battle the RIAA actually has to win. They just need to make the other side feel enough pain and inconvenience. I'm sure that p2p could be encapsulated and run over UDP, http, ICMP, or what have you. The point here is that it's getting slower and more difficult to run. Plus as it gets slower, and the border filtering gets more annoying, some number of people will just give up.

They really don't have to completely eliminate filesharing, just drop it to some level below their attention span, and that is possible, and I honestly don't know what the cost is. I also fear that the higher the cost, the more WE pay.

Will Morpheus switch to openFT?

[Mr. Neutron]

It's nice to see Morpheus switch to a completely open source network, but Gnutella? With all its noisiness and scaling problems? If they could have switched its users over to openFT, it would have been the first completely open, decentralized, and scalable P2P network to gain wide usage.

A shame, really.

Re:Will Morpheus switch to openFT?

[uchian]

The problem with peer 2 peer networks is that they are only as useful as the content shared on them.

And the content shared depends upon the number iof people using the service.

It makes sense for Morpheus to switch to a P2P which has a known audience, so that they don't have to start "from scratch"

I would like to hazard aguess that the gnutella network is slowly but surely becoming more mature, and more capable of handling large loads, with the addiiion of ultra peers or whatever they are called in Limewire, In other words, the mathematical arguments againsy the gnutella network are being worked around, instead of being ignored.

At the moment, I do not believe that Gnutella is the best network out there. However, it does seem to be the only one that is actually advancing with new features.

I am thru with it, and you should be too...

[sluggie]

Face it people, name it Morpheus, name it Kazaa, name it something else.

What shuts such network down?
It's the money, always.

Who is pissed off in the end?
The user, always.

So, what is the solution to all this?
Gnutella, always.

I know, my post sounds something like a troll, but please, think about it.
Let's all migrate to gnutella, fire up you favourite client and let's start sharing.
We will se how gnutella scales, how it evolves. I think if we all pull over to the only true p2p architecture, we will shut out the MPAA the RIAA and all other stuff that bothers us.

Yes, maybe people with 56k modems won't be very happy with this. But to speak in the words of a modern time, the collateral damage is everywhere.
And as time goes on, everybody is going to be on a better connection.

So, let's shape up, put your middle finger in the air and use gnutella...

Just my 0.02

Not Quite

[FallLine]

Sorry, while technically accurate, it's unrealistic and unfeasible. The problem is that you presume that all the industry can do is merely shut down the daemon, there by allowing others to merely popup in its place. But this is not the case here. All the copyright holders have to do is use their influence more effectively to penalize the people that are sharing the files. The penalty need not be legal at its head (as opposed to its legal origin) to be effective. For instance, if the company strikes up an explicit or implicit deal with the cable modem and DSL companies to shut off the internet access of any individual found sharing pirated material for, say, 1 to 2 months. This would be plenty to deter those people and it would be quite simple to impliment.

What you must remember is that these filesharing services do not offer the sharer anything and, even without any sort of meaningful enforcement today, have significant drawbacks (e.g., lost resources, bandwidth, etc). In other words, the costs exceed the benefits somewhat. This is why we have the so-called "Tragedy of the commons" today on most file sharing services. The leaches far outnumber the sharers. Now when we toss a large helping of risk in there, you'll see this cost vs benefit ratio change significantly for the worse and a mass exodus of sharers. The industry need not be able to reach every last one of them--just enough to raise the level of risk to a sufficiently high level. Nor does every last individual need to change his habits, the combination of the excessive demand and the potential for additional measures (legal, political, and otherwise) is more than sufficient to bring the service to an effective halt.

Re:Not Quite

[FallLine]

But, remember that if certain ISPs start to "get in bed" with the various studios and "content providers" and have draconian rules about file-sharing (and let's not forget that they pretty much all say you can be cut-off for illegal activites, including warezing stuff) then there will be competition among ISPs and people will flock to other providers who aren't in league with. And yes, I know quite a few people don't have a choice if they want broadband, but also a lot of people are free to vote with their wallets.

I disagree. The users that have pro-copyright ISPs would have no direct (and organic) incentive to switch. They could leach every bit as well with the pro-copyright ISP (that's using the idea that I propose) as they could with the "free" ISP. Now maybe in theory, if a significant portion of the users could agree to switch, they might improve their collective lot (by way of creating more publically available pirated material), but this takes us back to the same problem of the tragedy of the commons. In other words, unless the individual is somehow compelled to switch and share in order to enjoy others' fruits, it simply won't work. Every individual that does switch, given human nature, will not enjoy any fruits for switching and will likely have to spend time, energy, and money switching (and possibly get a lower quality ISP in the process).

If so few users share today given the cost v benefit, then why should we believe even a fraction of those will switch when we just substantially increase the cost (through risk and/or loss of service) and do nothing substantial (in all likelyhood) to increase their benefit? Furthermore, any ISP that recieves these prolifigate pirating users en masse will simply not make any money on them. That ISP simply cannot sustain themselves on those users (the bandwidth costs and the potential legal costs); either the ISP raises the price (a further disincentive) or loses money for each additional pirate they allow (as individuals or systematically).

I would also assert that the ISPs choice is not Draconian. The ISPs are just effectively penalizing pirates that choose to violate the law [now, of course, those users that pirate the most also tend to be the most attached to their internet connection(s)], the same law that could be used to apply much stricter penalties in a court of law. The main stream public is unlikely to feel much empathy for these guys, especially when they go to such ends (e.g., switching ISPs, hiding, ignoring multiple warnings, etc) to further piracy. It would be one thing if we're talking about some kid hopping on some "magic-like" P2P program for the first time, downloading some warez program for his class, and being prosecuted for it, but this is most emphatically not the case here.

I would further add that these prolific pirates are more likely to switch to more insular means (networks) to provide them with greater benefits (e.g., more proportion recognition by equals rather than anonymous "lamers") and less risk while simultaneously locking out the overwhelming majority. People that go to these ends (and have the technical and intellectual prowess to keep at it) are unlikely to be that dettered as a group, but as long as they keep their goods to themselves, they are not a significant factor to the industry and can be safely written off.

As to the people not sharing stuff problem- you're going to have that whether it's super-illegal (as opposed to merely illegal ordinary!) or not; I'm sure that some new file-sharing network will spring up some day soon that forces you to share (and does check). That service would grow sharply in popularity because there would be more files available. Even now, in edonkey (which shares files even as you are downloading them), I see new files are much more available than older ones, either because people aren't sharing any folder other than their "incoming" one, or because they don't have the space and so are archiving stuff onto cd once it's finished.

Well mandatory sharing that can't or, rather, wouldn't be circumvented might certainly change things, but that's awefully hard to manage in truely decentralized environment without mandating an inefficient and annoying quid pro quo system. I won't say impossible, but the technical hurdles are huge and even then I'd think those more committed and prolific users would just switch to or stay with the lower tech more insular networks of trust amongst like users (e.g., IRC users truely sharing amongst each other).

The change in tactic that I describe may seem a subtle difference than the scenario that most people envision, but I believe that it would be highly effective, just as Napster was highly effective. Napster was highly effective because it made the act of searching and leaching simple and efficient from an individual AND network point of view. Well these acts would largely restore the balance to the point prior to Napster by making any sort of efficient system unfeasible in light of human nature, probable technology limitations, and legal/political/commercial influence. Thanks

Re:Not Quite

[FallLine]

What I suggest, as an example, is that the industry, or agents of them, regularly search for their material using the publically acessible interfaces and report any open fileshares containing their material to the offenders' ISPs [This is by no means the only way, but it would be the first way]. This task could be automated quite effectively (and confirmed by humans if need be). It is legal and it respects even the rights of those that are just leaching. In short, it's quite a viable avenue and it would be highly effective.

The relative illegality of uploading versus downloading is besides the point. The uploaders are the critical link and are far fewer in numbers. Given the lack of incentive and lack of risk, as I've described, they would rapidly diminish as more and more of their comrades lose their connectivity [and/or potentially face criminal or civil lawsuits at the higher end of the food chain] due to their habits. Attacking the downloaders, would be much trickier, as they are large in number and have significant incentive to take those kinds of risks themselves. In short, the leachers would be asking the file sharing/uploaders to play Russian Rullette, i.e., to a take a bullet for a complete stranger. Put differently, the industry need only pray on human nature, not every last human.

My favourite pet theory

[frost22]

I think we all are watching a grandiose play.

Essentially, the IP faction has already bought out KaZaa, under one condition: that they first kill off Morpheus. Witness the obscure and unexplained sellout of Kazaa to a mysterious foreign company nobody really knows. Witness the sequence of events. Witness the actions of Kazaa completely damaging Kazaas own legal standing, while only beeing of limited use to them.

The Kazaa founders probably got enough money and a promise not to get sued personally for pulling of this stunt.

This just has waaay too much "random" events to be normal.

Fair use is not a black and white issue

[klieber]

No it damn well isn't. If I hear one more Slashdotter claim that personal/friends/family copies are "fair use", I will quite seriously bust a gut.

It may not be fair use, but it may also not be copyright infringement. In fact, it's a grey area. According to ChillingEffect.org, deciding whether something is fair use or not involves (among other things):

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

So it could be argued that limited copying for personal use provides negligible impact on the overall market, and is therefore fair use. It could also be argued the other way, but it's certainly not as black and white as you make it seem.

And if it is copyright infringement, the owner of the copyright may not be entitled to any remuneration:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html

A reasonable discussion of Fair Use, with considerably more thought and insight than the parent post is available here:

http://www.arl.org/scomm/copyright/uses.html

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[klieber]

you are disproving your own claim that a user wont pay a fine for infringing

No, actually you're manipulating what I originally said. I said a user may not have to remunerate the copyright holder. I never said they will not. If you read the section you cited again, you'll notice that statuatory damages are a choice that the copyright owner may select, but he may also choose actual damages and profits, which are then left up to the court to decide. (and they could decide it was $0)

Again, the overriding point of my original post is that this whole thing is a grey area. This just serves to reaffirm that fact.

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[Rogerborg]

[personal/friends/family copies] may not be fair use, but it may also not be copyright infringement. In fact, it's a grey area

It absolutely is not, and none of your references even suggest otherwise. I'll just assert that flat out, because I doubt that most readers will bother reading either of our references, and it bothers me to see this fantasy reenforced here yet again, because it gives a false sense of security, that our personal activities are protected and sacrosanct.

• So it could be argued that limited copying for personal use provides negligible impact on the overall market, and is therefore fair use

Look, I'll spell it out again, shall I? There is no clause in fair use, there never has been one, that allows fair use for anything other than: (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching. To qualify for consideration under the fair use defence, your use must fall into these categories. You don't even get to argue the "negligible impact" until you've shown that you qualify. There is no case zero. There is no case six. Personal/friends/family use is not one of the five cases.

• A reasonable discussion of Fair Use, with considerably more thought and insight than the parent post is available here

Betting nobody would read it, huh? This is a very brief document that deals with protection of existing library fair use, which is firmly in the realm of "scholarship and research" and/or "teaching". But enough from me, let's quote verbatim from your reference, with no editing:

• "The fair use provision of the Copyright Act allows reproduction and other uses of copyrighted works under certain conditions for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research. Additional provisions of the law allow uses specifically permitted by Congress to further educational and library activities"

OK, thanks for making my point. No mention of personal use. Personal use, friends and family copies, this is fiction, not fact.

If you're going to argue legalities, you have to learn to quote case law. I'm going to help you out a bit by posting a synopsis of the Supreme Court decision in Sony v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984), a.k.a. "the Betamax case" aka the "Sony Decision" judgement. Note that it contradicts my black and white stance a little, but note also that it qualifies that very carefully, and that it references earlier case law:

• "The respondents and Sony both conducted surveys of the way the Betamax machine was used by several hundred owners during a sample period in 1978. Although there were some differences in the surveys, they both showed that the primary use of the machine for most owners was "time-shifting" -- the practice of recording a program to view it once at a later time, and thereafter erasing it. [...] The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102." "

OK, your turn. Find a case that extends the defence of a single and temporary copy, entirely within the home, to make it even remotely relevant to making permanent copies for the use of friends and family, or even for personal use. You can't, because no such source exists, no matter how hard you wish for it, and however hard you wish that future judgements are going to be based on the wish list of libraries, the fact is that future judgements will be based on past judgements. Find the case law that supports making permanent copies of non-broadcast material for yourself, or for friends or family.

Incidentally, this is very much On Topic. If it comes to the crunch, Gnutella - rather Gnutella developers - are just as boned as Kazaa, because neither of them can (I contend) show that they even qualify for consideration for fair use protection. The financial argument is irrelevant, because they won't be able to show grounds for even making it.

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[dpotter]

Rogerborg takes a very complex issue and attempts to reduce it to a simple black-and-white statement. He defends this viewpoint in a strong tone, and is contemptuous of other viewpoints offered by slashdot readers.

IANAL, so instead of arguing the point, I present this post as a list of expert opinions which contradict Rogerborg's position.

Rogerborg: Look, I'll spell it out again, shall I? There is no clause in fair use, there never has been one, that allows fair use for anything other than: (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching. To qualify for consideration under the fair use defence, your use must fall into these categories. You don't even get to argue the "negligible impact" until you've shown that you qualify. There is no case zero. There is no case six.

According to the EFF, this list of fair use activities is "not to be construed as exclusive or limiting in any way."

Current national security advisor Condoleezza Rice authored a paper on fair use in 1988, in which she states "The concept of fair use is necessarily somewhat vague when discussed in the abstract. Its application depends critically on the particular facts of the individual situation. Neither the case law nor the statutory law provides bright lines concerning which uses are fair and which are not."

As mentioned in the previous post, the Sony vs. Universal City Studios Case contradicts Rogerborg's black-and-white interpretation of section 107, as it defines time-shifting television programs as fair use.

Previous case law has held that the following are fair uses of copyrighted materials:

Making personal backups of software.

Time-shifting television programs.

Format-shifting.

Compilation creation ("mix tapes")

Rebroadcasting radio in a business.

In short, a wide body of experts seem to disagree with the viewpoint espoused by Rogerborg. I exhort you to consider this when reading his posts. I further ask that you consider that he was willing to defend his viewpoint so vehemently in spite of the contradictory expert viewpoints readily available.

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[RatFink100]

This is true bu still, most copyrighted material shared on something like Morpheus would probably fail both (3) and (4) because it's usually the entire work and it's available to millions.

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[mpe]

Time-shifting television programs.

Wonder if this could be applied to getting hold of a copy of a broadcast programme you would not otherwise be able to see for some months even years... Effectivly a "time shift" in the opposite direction from the usual understanding.
Or to otherwise subvert the attempts of broadcasting companies to partition up the market based on geography.

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[Greg W.]

Wonder if this could be applied to getting hold of a copy of a broadcast programme you would not otherwise be able to see for some months even years...

I doubt it, very strongly. If that were so, then I could just time-shift downloaded Ogg and MP3 files from the distant future where their copyright term has expired and they're public domain. "But, Your Honor, these phonorecords will enter the public domain in 2097, assuming no more retroactive copyright extension laws are passed in the next 95 years! So I just time-shifted it, and I downloaded it early!"

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[kesuki]

I know people who thing that by recording the FBI warning on the front of the cassete to a copy they made for a home library that they're 'obeying' copyright law.
Well, you're not. But you're not commiting a Criminal offense of a copyright violation Unless:

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

Oh BTW if you're trading under $1,000 worth in a 180 day period with friends you met on the internet make sure that you keep the copyright notice on there because it's an extra $2,500 fine per copy for removing the FBI warning.

It is copyright infringment the minute you start to copy that tape, but it's not a criminal act until you meet the threshold. This is a very important distinction, and if you are trading music or tapes I'd keep good books to ensure compliance with the law. Just a warning though, you can still be sued in civil court. But if it's not a criminal act you won't get any jail time for copyright infringment. Talk about a double standard too, a fraudulent claim of copyright infringment can only be fined $2,500. and that 'fine' would require a high burden of proof. Another downer to criminal copyright infringment is that the court can order all equipment used destroyed. That means by by PC if you're using it for Criminal Copyright infringment and get caught.

Re:Fair use is not a black and white issue

[Rogerborg]

• defends this viewpoint in a strong tone, and is contemptuous of other viewpoints offered by slashdot readers

Or, actually followed, read and dissected the references given. The references quoted in response actually contradicted the statements made, and basically supported my point. Sorry, but they did, and I couldn't let that bluff slip past unchallenged... just as you quite rightly challenge my assertions. On the other hand, I did feel so bad about being all fierce and nasty that I even helped the respondant out by torpedoing my own assertion with salient quotes from the Betamax Decision, which is what I was rather hoping someone else would do for me to demonstrate that this isn't just a forum for skimmers and ranters. Hey ho.

• Previous case law has held that the following are fair uses of copyrighted materials:

• • Making personal backups of software.
  • Time-shifting television programs.
  • Format-shifting.
  • Compilation creation ("mix tapes")
  • Rebroadcasting radio in a business.

Ok, I've read the reference (very interesting, thanks), and the only one that I see confirmed is time-shifting publically broadcast television for a single viewing, from the Betamax Decision, which I already mentioned. None of the other cases appear to deal with personal/friends/family use, nor with the uses you quote. Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you actually explain which cases you're referring to? Oh, and off the top of my head, don't you need a public performance license to rebroadcast radio in a workplace?

I fess up, I'm being deliberately provocative. The very simple reason for that is that the DMCA and the nascent SSSCA make me deeply concerned for the future of P2P in specific and the whole concept of fair use in general. You must be aware that every time this issue rolls around, there's a flurry of posts about how personal non-for-profit use is fair, so neener neener Mr Government. I simply don't believe that is the case, and given the number of people that take what they read on Slashdot as gospel, I think that it's important to give an emphatic "No!" to that to balance the complacent "Yes!" posts.

You'll notice that we both referenced the EFF. I'd point out their extremely inflamatory - and highly inaccurate - language about the Felten case: "Judge Denies Scientists' Free Speech Rights". You just know they wanted to add a slew of !!bangs!! there. Looking at the actual ruling, the judge dismissed the case because the case - as brought - was no longer there to be answered. The language of the EFF's initial releases clearly - and completely falsely - implied that the ruling was anti-constitutional, when their actual gripe was simply that the case was dismissed before it became a constitutional issue. They clearly feel that sometimes it's more important to keep it simple, stupid than to provide a balanced view. And sometimes I find myself agreeing with them.

I'm also here to learn, and the first thing I learned on Slashdot is never trust anything. Don't trust what people say here. Don't trust them if they provide a plausible looking link. Follow the link, read the references, consider the sources, and verify them. Which is why I am questioning your (very interesting) link, and suggesting that you are - perhaps - making assumptions about what's in those cases. Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong, but be sure to quote the specific cases that support your fair use examples, because I'm not seeing them.

Can we agree on this?

• Judges are evolutionary, not revolutionary whenever possible.
• Peer 2 Peer sharing involves making permanent format-shifted copies of non-broadcast material and distributing these permanent copies in a potentially large scale but non commercial way outside of the home.
• There is no case law precedent for this situation, but there is for one that is a close evolution away from it. Specifically, for-profit copying and selling of content.

Pure P2P (not a Napster/Kazaa client/server hybrid) is going to go to a judgement sooner or later. The defence will be that it's fair use. In all honesty, I do agree that any unbiased court will consider that defence rather than dismissing it out of hand, but - and again, please quote specific case examples if I'm wrong - I don't see the case law that even remotely supports that assertion. In fact, it's more likely that a court will start from the very close example of commercial piracy, and spot that the only material difference is the not-for-profit nature. Oh, except for Morpheus. They're for profit. So there's no difference that I can see.

Or, in skimmer language: I'd expect P2P to be assumed guilty until proven innocent, and not the other way around.

Got a reference to a case that's a small evolution away that indicates otherwise? I suspect not.

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[klieber]

And when it comes down to it, there's no reason other habit.

Huh? Habit? There are several technological reasons why Kazaa cannot monitor the network. Number one is the software isn't programmed to do that.

OK, so you can change that, but then there's the issues of servers -- Kazaa doesn't have enough of them to implement monitoring on a global scale. That's one of the beauties of P2P networks is that the load is distributed across thousands of servers. (and yes, it's one of the drawbacks, too)

Then finally, there's the issue of bandwidth, which isn't free. Currently, Kazaa, et al only have to maintain enough bandwidth to do a one-time authentication of their users. If they suddenly have to monitor each and every file that gets shared, you're talking about a massive amount of additional bandwidth that they'll have to procure (and pay for!!)

Napster was ordered to filter files because they could, based on their current technology base. Sony was let off the hook because they couldn't. (gross oversimplification, but it's still applicable)

Napster was certainly boned because they were a wholly-centralized network. Kazaa may be boned, because part of their network is centralized (though I don't think they will be). Gnutella is boned because they run into scalability problems with traffic spikes, but their network is *entirely* decentralized. It's only a matter of time before some innovative entrepenuer comes up with the right balance that will keep the courts off their back and still allow a scalable, free P2P file sharing network.

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[elefantstn]

I don't think that comparison is valid. It's like saying, well, Sony COULD come into your house and destroy any illegal tapes you made with their VCR, right? The point with Napster was that the indexing was taking place on servers they ran -- with FastTrack, the indexing is going on on individual users' machines.

it just goes to show whats really important

[rebelcool]

It's not about being 'right' or 'wrong' or some kind of moral platitude. It's about whose ego is getting stroked.

help from the reg

[Dambiel]

"As a result of MusicCity's breach, Kazaa BV did not provide version 1.5 to MusicCity. Kazaa has also terminated MusicCity's license." (from the cnet link)

while TheRegister reports that the plug was pulled bc of attacks on the morpheus network:
"It appears that the attacks included an encrypted message being repeatedly sent directly to your computers that changed registry settings in your computer," a statement by Griffin to users on the accelerated availability of Morpheus Preview Edition states.

Orrin Hatch disagrees with you

[abe ferlman]

You know, conservative Senator from Utah, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee? I believe he even helped write the DMCA.

Go look up Hilary Rosen's Senate testimony regarding Napster, and read the exchange between them. Orrin says basically "is it fair use if I make a copy for my wife to play in her car?" Rosen hems and haws, and Hatch says something to the effect of "It is."

Now, sharing anonymously over a network is a whole different ball of wax, and that's what's got the RIAA and MPAA in a tizzy.

Re:Orrin Hatch disagrees with you

[Fjord]

In that case it is clearly fair use, because a husband and wife have communal property. It is fair use to make copies of your copyrighted works you own to other media. This however is different than make a copy for a friend. The Audio Home Record Act says that's okay. It even say it's ok if it isn't a friend, as long as it is noncommercially.

Re:Orrin Hatch disagrees with you

[mpe]

In that case it is clearly fair use, because a husband and wife have communal property.

So does a corporation. But the RIAA/MPAA would probably get very upset a corporate entity attempted to use one copy of one of their works for their entire organisation.

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[elefantstn]

Of course it's technically possible, the question is whether or not it's their responsibility. Their case is that because all the infringement taking place does so on other people's machines, it is not. Technical feasability isn't the question. In the case of Napster, they couldn't solve the problem technically, so they were forced to shut down until they could.

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[asavage]

What they mean is KaZaa has shown that they are able to stop the network. In the dutch case they claimed that they were unable to stop users with the program from using it.

Re:Open Source anyone?

[RatFink100]

But would you have checked for backdoors?

Probably not - it's too much work. I could pretend that's the reason I don't use these programs. In actual fact the reason I don't is that I don't need P2P.

Open Source does not guarantee security. Open Source does not guarantee that there are no backdoors. Someone still has to look at the code to establish those issues.

Open Source only guarantees that you would have the ability to check for holes.

Which is kinda what I meant when I said "If it had been an Open Source client you would have had the ability to make sure there *are* no backdoors." [emphasis added]

The point is that Open Source gives you another option. The option it gives you requires some work. But hey, Life's Tough!

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[DennisZeMenace]

This is not true at all. They DO control the network precisely because they control the authentication. The only clients that are allowed to log on the network are the clients that license FastTrack's code, and they have full control over that code (see big fat agreement to license FastTrack's code).

The proof: FastTrack doesn't allow people to share MP3's encoded above 128kbps. How ? Because the restriction is encoded in their library, which is used by the clients they control.

GiFT is another example. All FastTrack had to do to shut down GiFT forever was to boost up its protocol version number and change the authentication mechanism. They definitely have control over their network, which is precisely why they'll loose the legal battle.

My biggest hope, is that GiFT and OpenFT will eventually take over as a true Open-Source alternative to the FastTrack network: a completely decentralized 2-layered network which will become the true successor of Gnutella.

DZM

Late to the party

[SomeOtherGuy]

Do either of these have Linux clients? Have not followed the p2p communitty much since Napster. Do not have windows machine at home..

Re:Late to the party

[radja]

morpheus (preview ed.) uses the gnutella network, for which there are several clients on different platforms. of the top of my head, limewire is available for linux, mac, and just about any other Java capable OS. You can get it at Limewire.com.

//rdj

"Such as" in US � law is *not* limitative

[yerricde]

There is no clause in fair use, there never has been one, that allows fair use for anything other than: (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching. To qualify for consideration under the fair use defence, your use must fall into these categories. You don't even get to argue the "negligible impact" until you've shown that you qualify. There is no case zero. There is no case six. Personal/friends/family use is not one of the five cases.

Bull. You completely misinterpret the "such as" wording of the law. According to 17 USC 101, "The terms 'including' and 'such as' are illustrative and not limitative" (emphasis by yerricde). The fair use law (17 USC 107) opens by stating: "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright" (emphasis by yerricde). Nowhere does it limit what may be considered as fair use. It then goes on to list the four factors that figure into a fair use defense. The judge in a fair use case must base her decision primarily (if not solely) on those factors. This non-limitation of fair use explains why the Sony v. Universal decision "contradicts [your] black and white stance a little."

Additionally, your CBS v. DNC quote may pose an argument against encryption of non-subscription broadcast television.

Re:"Such as" in US � law is *not* limitative

[mpe]

You completely misinterpret the "such as" wording of the law. According to 17 USC 101 [cornell.edu], "The terms 'including' and 'such as' are illustrative and not limitative" (emphasis by yerricde).

IIRC this kind of misunderstanding is the reason the people who wrote the US constitution deliberatly avoided enumerating examples...

Control != Knowledge

[Shagg]

I've seen a couple people stating so far that because Kazaa was able to shut down the Morpheus clients, this somehow means that they have set themselves up for a Napster-like ruling.

It needs to be stressed that control of who gets on the network, and knowledge of what goes on inside the network, are two entirely different things. Napster's downfall was not that they had the ability to shut down the network, but that they knew people where trading copyrighted material, and they could also step in and limit what material people had access to inside the network. The Fasttrack network is an entirely different beast. Kazaa may be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't, but once a user is on the network they have no ability to directly monitor what material people are trading and have no ability to limit what people have access to.

Kazaa is providing a network, but have no involvement with what users do inside the network. Napster lost their case because they did have an involvement with what happened inside the network.

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[CaptainSuperBoy]

The proof: FastTrack doesn't allow people to share MP3's encoded above 128kbps. How ? Because the restriction is encoded in their library, which is used by the clients they control.

Actually the restriction is in the registry, and it's simple to change. More importantly, the restriction isn't imposed by any other computer on the network - it's imposed by the software on your computer, not a central server. They could have their software to ignore files that begin with the letter b, but this is hardly control over the network.

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[monkeydo]

There are several technological reasons why Kazaa cannot monitor the network. Number one is the software isn't programmed to do that.

That is an implematation problem not a techological one.

Kazaa doesn't have enough [servers] to implement monitoring on a global scale.

If they are forced to monitor they will need more servers. Surely there is not a technological problem with buying servers.

Then finally, there's the issue of bandwidth, which isn't free.

That is a financial problem. If you can't afford to do business legally you can't afford to do business.

Napster was ordered to filter files because they could, based on their current technology base. Sony was let off the hook because they couldn't. (gross oversimplification, but it's still applicable)

All of the "problems" you have cited are really "choices" that were made by the implementors for the explicit purpose of not being able filter files. The question I have for you is, does that make their case stronger or weaker?

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[klieber]

This is not true at all. They DO control the network precisely because they control the authentication. The only clients that are allowed to log on the network are the clients that license FastTrack's code, and they have full control over that code (see big fat agreement to license FastTrack's code).

Actually, it is true. Kazaa controls *access* to the network. They do not control the network itself. They may be able to code their software to not allow any MP3s higher than 128kbps, but they cannot say, "Allow freemusic.mp3, but don't allow metallica_sucks.mp3" (I'm not saying this couldn't be added -- of course that's technically possible. However, it's not possible with the way the Fast Track network currently operates)

Fast Track is like a giant road system and Kazaa is the toll booth. They can charge you to get on and they may even be able to impose a speed limit, but they can't control which roads you travel over and what turns you make.

Re:Open Source anyone?

[Jeremi]

Open Source does not guarantee security.

Of course not. Nor does it guarantee a full, happy life, great sex, or a mint on your pillow. It's still better than closed source, though.

Open Source only guarantees that you would have the ability to check for holes.

Yup. And given the ability to, someone probably will. And the more people that check, the more likely a hole will be found and fixed. Hence, a net benefit to me, even if I don't bother to check the source myself.

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[DennisZeMenace]

You definitely have a point.

What i meant was: if you control how people access the network, and if you control the tools that people have to use to access the network, that's awefully close to controlling the network.. :-)

Technically, you don't have to go trough a FastTrack machine to download a file from another node (unlike Napster, which required a query to obtain the client IP address, IIRC).

HOWEVER, if FastTrack decides it doesn't want people to download files called "metallica_sucks.mp3", they can do it! They can code the restriction in they library, and force people to upgrade to a new version of their client. I hope you see my point here. After all that's what they did to disable GiFT.

You can of course hack the binary client (or registry entries) to lift some of the restrictions, but that's not for the average Joe user. In effect, the 128kbps restriction works, MP3s above 128 are extremely rare on the network (I've only seen it happen when the MP3 is encoded in VBR...).

DZM

Re:They control the authentication -- NOT the netw

[Kallahar]

I think what it implies is that Kazaa/FT has the *ability* to turn off their network. Even if they do not control what goes in or out, if they have the ability to forcibly remove everyone from the network then the judge won't let them use their "we don't have control" argument.

Of course, they can always have their next auto-patch permanently disable the auto-patch feature, but I doubt they want to intentionaly lose control of their network.

ouch

[minus_273]

Each company has contended that the networks are wholly decentralized, and that the companies could not exert any control over computer users' actions. But the failure of Morpheus' network appeared to indicate that at least one control point existed that would allow part of the network to be shut down. The RIAA reacted to this development quickly last week. "We have been saying all along that they control the system, and this proves it," RIAA Senior Vice President Matt Oppenheim said in a statement last week.

looks like someone just shot themselves in the foot... napster all over again.. :-P

Re:Eee Gads! I though it was non-shut-down-able...

[Evro]

You might want to point people at this thread for discussion on this very subject.

Re:yEnc is killing the newsgroups

[jd142]

yEnc will be a part of Free Agent and Agent by March 15th, so the added step of doing yDecode will be moot in a few short weeks for most heavy newgroup users. If you are looking at or listening to binaries from newsgroups, most people on windows migrate to some version of Agent. You are correct about the rar files needing to be recombined. But if all you care about are multimedia, that rarely comes up. It is only when you are looking at getting warez that the rar files come into play.

You young whippersnappers today have it too good! I remember when uudecoding was at this stage.

WTO process is too slow

[DABANSHEE]

to keep up.

Besides as far as the WTO is concerned, member countries are only required to have civil legislation concerning copyright infringements, not criminal legislation, just like patent law.

This means (AFA the WTO is concerned) govts don't have to do anything but not get in the way if a copyright holder decides to sue a copyright infringer, by which time they have moved on.

That's opensource in a nutshell

[DABANSHEE]

I'd say less than 1% of people who use opensource code add to it.

Re:That's opensource in a nutshell

[Von Rex]

But do those other 99% put their names on the code and release it as their own product, or do they just quietly use it for their own purposes without redistribution?

And I bet most of those 99% wouldn't go so far out of the way to actively deny where the code came from as the Morpheus team seems to want to do.

no credit clause in the GPL

[DABANSHEE]

You're referring to the BSD license.

Re:no credit clause in the GPL

[cduffy]

You're referring to the BSD license.

No, I'm not. I quote: "...provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice..."

A notice claiming ownership of someone else's code is certainly not appropriate.

no requirement in the GPL

[DABANSHEE]

Only that they provide source which they do.
Why are you so fustered about all this, as if it means anything?

Ig Gnucleus wanted credit they should have used the old BSD license or created their own opensource license.

stop sulking

[DABANSHEE]

who cares?

If Gnucleus wanted credit they should have used the BSD license

Gnucleus Sucks(IMHO)

[N8F8]

I like the GUI interface to Gnucleus.
Sure the biological install and update is neat.
But if I type in "Andromeda" and get "0" results then its completely useless.

Of course KaZaa is getting so overloaded now that I can't download anything. Looks like I'm going to have to buy a bigger harddrive and start recording the stuff myself.

I got Morpheus to work...

[hyrdra]

by changing the version number with a resource editor. Quite simple, really.

But Gnutella is crappy.

[Tom7]

I'd love to, but Gnutella is crappy. The network is filled with bad and incomplete files, most stuff is misdescribed, and searching is totally lame. The gnutella folks really need to work on the availability and quality of content in the network.

I think maybe Gnutella is a good starting user base for some new evolution of the system, but right now it doesn't hold a candle to Morpheus (or especially, Napster).

Re:But Gnutella is crappy.

[sluggie]

Hmm, good point.

But I think this is something like the chicken and egg problem.
The more users you have the better the content gets. So we should not talk about the gnutella folks, but use gnutella, go online and share high quality content.

We have to start somewhere, we have to start sometime. Why not here, why not now? (Rage Against the Machine always inspired me ;))

Re: Stability of Morpheus Preview questionable

[King_TJ]

Well, in my limited experience with the new Morpheus Preview software, I'd recommend deleting it too - but dunno what alternate client I'd recommend.

I grabbed it the first night they made it available, to see what they'd done to it. Fired it up and decided to let it run overnight, to see who would download my files. The next day, I found the Morpheus Preview had completely shut down on my machine. I tried to launch it again, and it refused to run. I had to reboot my PC (running Win2K SP2) before I could make it run again.

If it's that unstable, people aren't going to be sharing many files through it.... I can't say if the stability issues are rooted in the Gnucleus software it came from either. (Never tried Gnucleus.) But it's rather suspect.

Re:Kazaa alwaus trying to get morpheus users

[mpe]

Kazaa suffers less and less users as people run popular AdAware software on their computers. (Which removes kazaa spyware, which kazaa checks for on each load, otherwise disables itself.)

Unless people install the fake cydoor DLL file, since apparently it simply checks for the existance of a DLL. Rather than attempting to verify that DLL too.

Any judge?

[kesuki]

Now I can't really argue anything about fair-use case laws, but there is one thing you're wrong about. Supreme court Justices are appointed for Life. They cannot be 'initimidated' by RIAA goons, and accepting bribes from the RIAA is one of the few ways that a justice could actually be removed from a life long job on the supreme court.
As far as murdering a justice goes, well They get death threats all the time and generally have to have 24/7 protection from crazy people pissed off over abortion or other spark issues. So no, the RIAA will Never have a supreme court justice's head 'on a platter.'
Of course the supreme court probably wouldn't condone 'digital theft.' There is still some hope that they could decide that the artist and not the labels own the digital rights to music much as they own the rights to radio. They could also strike down the contract-writer portion of the DMCA which prevents the copyright on songs from ever reverting to the original song writter.
If artists own the rights to music then they could well sign on to a p2p system that was ad supported and paid them fractions of a cent per download. It has to beat what the labels are paying most artists, and the service could even integrate virtual tip-jar to make it more appealing to struggling artists.

Napster? Files? Yeah, sure.

[hearingaid]

With Napster, it was different since Napster *did* control what files were/weren't shared.

I think not.

Napster controlled what files could be searched for. However, once you'd identified a Likely Hard Drive, all you had to do was add that person to your hotlist and you could browse their shares.

This is how I found an awful lot of stuff. Including things which failed to appear in hits from the central server.