Slashdot Mirror
CEO of Brilliant Defends Sneaky Installation Practices
Em Emalb and other readers sent in follow-ups to our earlier story about yet more bundled crapware with Kazaa. Kazaa says they didn't do anything wrong; and so does Brilliant's CEO. I don't understand why anyone is still installing Kazaa, given their track record. Brilliant's brilliant plan is to use your computer to distribute their advertising, and give out Altnet resource dollars in exchange.
maybe if they would add the features we want into gnutella, or at least make it more scalable, we'd switch over!
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
" don't understand why anyone is still installing Kazaa, given their track record."
Because 99.9% of Kazaa users don't know about slashdot, don't know about spyware, and don't even care when I tell them.
All they want is to add to their 100GB collection of mp3's.
Anyone living in the dorms right now can attest to this I'm sure. It also makes me realize where the RIAA is coming from, when kids literally skip classes to download more music and movies.
The reason people still use it, is because despite it's annoyances, it is /very/ easy to get a hold of software. I have a friend who swears by it, and related this bit of fact.
He just started classes and needed VB6 for the homework assignments. He went home logged on to kazaa, and withing 3-4 hours he had it downloaded and installed. Yes it is illegal, yes it probably shouldn't happen. But if he can save a couple hundred dollars while going to school, I know he'll do it.
Find him something else as good, without the annoyances, and I guarantee he will use it. Until then, he'll live with the pop-ups.
-= Xafloc =-
alinuxbox.com
N
The reason why people still use Kazaa over alternatives is that the Gnutella network tends to have poor selection, is slower, etc. etc. Personally I think AudioGalaxy is better than both, but then I prefer to less mainstream music it caters to.
As with all annoying advertisements the consumer has to balance the cost versus the benefit. Personally while I'd hate to have more ads, are they really using up that much more bandwidth than sharing my songs? Probably not. So long as there aren't pop-ups that my popup killer can't handle I don't really care. Besides which when I'm not looking for music I don't have Kazaa (or Morpheus or AudioGalaxy) running on my system.
From what I have heard/read lately, it seems that this trojan program is silently installed on to a users hard drive.
If a user decides to remove their install of Kazaa, then Kazaa should remove ALL traces of what it put on a users computer.
By hiding it, and making it virtually impossible for a casual user to remove, this should definately be classified as a trojan. Also, I have heard that Kazaa claims that this program is only active when the client is runnng/connected. If this is the case, then why wouldn't it automagically uninstall if you chose to remove Kazaa from your computer?
I'm just hoping that, for once, the RIAA strings these people up. Ask for permission to use my cycles, I will probably let you. Hide it in your 1,000,000 page EULA, go to hell. This is almost as bad as when WebHancer was bundled with AudioGalaxy.
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
Users DONT READ the EULA's, Users ARE NOT COMPANIES. THEY DONT CARE ABOUT EULA's. When was the last time you read it before clicking "I AGREE".
Im of the fortunate people who knows how declaw kazaa and all its crap that comes with it.
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
What I want to know is why Anti-Virus vendors don't just go a head and classify this stuff as a virus and do us all a favor and get rid of this crap for us.
Let's see if we can sum this up...
KaZaa gets a lot of bandwidth from people who are downloading and trading music/video/software on a peer to peer basis. Many of these people do not own what they are distributing/trading. They are thieves.
KaZaa sells spare bandwidth on that network to Brilliant. Kazaa makes money off of the thieves.
Brilliant sells it for advertising, etc... they make money.
I know there are plenty of arguments about the true cost of music, so perhaps even the record companies are thieves. I think this is a case of everyone stealing from everyone. Except the artists, who are forever in the lurch.
Day in and day out people bitch about spyware this and trojan that..
Did you pay for the software? No You didnt.
Is there any harm in a company trying to profit off software they provide? Give me a break. This is nothing but Seti with a P2P attached.
Did you fully read the TOS that came with the software? If you didn't you have no right to complain..
Your all suck as much log as the people who complain about the president.. But never vote..
And sometimes I think some of you would complain if a person gave you a wrinkled $100 bill...
"No its wrinkled I want a new one damn it or I will refuse to take it at all!!"
Personal Website
As I understand it, it's not the CPU cycles that are so valuable to them, but the users bandwidth.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Because its written in MFC!
I've managed to convince a few otherwise stubborn people that spyware, malware, and god-knows-what-it's-installing-ware are bad things. After trying several approaches, I found there's one argument that always seems to work: tell them that these sort of junk addons could delete their MP3 collection. The average KaZaA user, as you pointed out, doesn't care much (if all) about the privacy and security implications of clicking through the EULA. What they do care about is their MP3s, and you can use that thought to get them concerned about spyware. Think of it as reverse-psychology FUD; applying facts to a topic that's bound to scare them into paying attention.
To a lot of people, music trading is a compulsion, much like some people "collect" porn or warez. (The comment about kids skipping class to download more is a fairly sad indication of this.) It's not so much about using the stuff, as it is about having the stuff; the bigger the collection the better, etc. Compare someone who's really into MP3 swapping with someone who's really into warez. Chances are, you'll find that they have a large collection, the majority of which they never use personally, and some of which they probably don't even like but have saved to enlarge the packrat's nest. You'll probably also find that they're outright frightened by the thought of losing any of it, even the stuff they don't use. It's a hoarding mentality, regardless of whether it's warez, porn, music, or whatever.
With that knowledge you can make a pretty convincing argument, even to the most computer-ignorant people, about the possible repercussions of disregarding EULAs and letting the installer do whatever it wants. Toss around the idea that the spyware du jour might be a program written by record companies to delete all MP3s on the hard drive. Suggest that hidden background apps might be making lists of MP3 files and sending them to a record company's lawyer. These things are technically possible - and if this Altnet turdlet has been lying dormant and undiscovered in Kazaa for a few months, who knows what else is waiting? Maybe some innocently named function call in an installer-dropped DLL isn't doing what its name would suggest.
Don't get too technical (most people get lost if you say "RIAA" instead of "record company," for instance) but be sure to plant the idea that recklessly installing software could wipe out their music collection, or their porn collection, or [insert whatever data is most valuable to them]. You'll get their attention pretty quickly.
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Why on Earth should content owners -- notice how they're not even "content providers" anymore -- have any "control over the end-user experience"? Why on Earth would I be interested in using a network that gave them such?
Funny, when I buy a book, I can read it. Or read it aloud. Or throw it in the garbage. Or donate it to a library. Or lend it to a friend. Or tear it up and make origami out of it. (OK, not that last -- it'd be cool if I knew how to make origami). Last I checked, neither the author, the publisher, or the distributor can say diddly about my final use, except in the narrow sense that I cannot illegitimately copy it. Why should digital content be given any special treatment?
At least and at last, copyright holders are showing their true colors, with watermarks and generation controls and "authorization devices". It's not about stopping infringement. It's not about selling more stuff. It's about control -- about securing total control to allow eventual maximization of access and profit. And to hell with the end user if they don't like it.
Ah, Cosmo (of Sneakers , you said it best:
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach