Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Lite: spyware-free version
Pig Hogger writes "According to this VNUNET article, KAZAA-Lite, a new hacked version of spyware-ridden KAZAA file-sharing software is being circulated, sans spyware. The new, improved version has apparently been hacked by a russian programmer, as a matter of course."
This is something I've been wondering about this Kazaa controversy. Sure, an unwanted program designed to take up your hard drive space and CPU cycles is "bad"-ware. It is certainly "undisclosed"-ware and "unwanted"-ware. I would even go so far as to say it is "Flushing Kazaa's reputation down the toilet"-ware. However, is "spy"-ware the right term? While a distributed computing program probably does report a fair amount of information back to the main server, it isn't usually designed to spy of the user.
What I find very strange about this whole thing is why Brilliant Digital Media wasn't more upfront about their program. Would the average computer user totally reject the upfront trade of "You get to use this neato-keen file-sharing network for free, and all you have to give us is a little bit of the computer time and space you aren't using"? I guess it would have just killed them to be honest and straightforward about the deal users were making. To paraphrase a saying "The respect you give is the respect you'll receive".
I've noticed two common misconceptions - that the people running Kazaa (Sharman Networks?) can block this client easily. And also that they can stop the client being hosted on websites.
First, it's not that easy to block the client because the client is the same as the one you get from the Kazaa website, it's just had all the spyware and other crap removed. So basically the only way Kazaa could block it is by releasing a new client version and blocking all old versions.
That'd mean all users would need to download a new client (not just the users of Kazaa Lite). Plus the guy would just remove the spyware from the new version and put that up as Kazaa Lite again.
Secondly, if they somehow get the guy to stop allowing people to download from the website the guy can just go and stick it on Gnutella or another P2P service and magic - suddnely it's on 1000s of computers out there.
Basically, as someone else has said, the cat's out of the bag.
An example you want? Here is one, judge for yourself how good it is.
There are countries other than United States, and those other countries often have sane copyright laws (probably because they didn't have legislature as corrupt as US one). In those countries music and other works of art fall into public domain much faster than in USA.
Some works were always in public domain. Take, for example, songs of Vladimir Vysotsky, even when he was alive. Other works, of other artists, were copyrighted but became public domain long ago, according to laws of that country.
It is a big mistake to treat the whole world as an extension of USA. The world is much larger, and it is not obeying the same insane laws that americans do. Most of the world does not even care about american "top 40" or whatever it is called. Most people on the planet would not listen to those sounds even if they are paid to do so. Finally, most artists in the world have nothing to do with RIAA.