Slashdot Mirror
More on Kazaa and Brilliant Digital Spyware
Vertigo01 writes: "There is an interesting article from CNN.com on the current state of the Kazaa controversy, and Brilliant Digital's plans for the future. Interesting quotes from the article include a statement saying that 'Altnet's seeded software [will be] awakened some time in May' and that 'Brilliant is negotiating with music labels and movie studios to market their material as well. The files will be copy-protected in some way, using Microsoft's digital rights management encryption technology.'"
Am I reading that all wrong, or do they seriously want to piggyback a legal filesharing scheme on the back of Kazaa? I can almost see the argument of saying "Don't trust that file you've just found? Why not fork out for the real version?", but on the other hand, are the RIAA going to come within a nautical mile of something that also does illegal filesharing.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
... just go ahead, get kazaalite (http://www.kazaalite.com/) and start sharing.
I don't care in which way they will copyright their material.
Let's just enjoy it as long as it lasts, we can move over to gnutella anytime we want. Since kazaa, etc are aware of this fact they will go on like they do now (not suing kazaalite) as long as possible...
To cut a long story short: Don't freak out when someone points out a problem we already have the solution for.
Which part stuns you? They have found a potential source of income. People don't care. They'll install anything on their machine. In their privacy statement they clearly state that they collect any information they can, and use much of that information any way they want. In their resource usage page they say that they also can steal 10% of your CPU power.
They have said it all loud and clear, and if you install the software, you practically give them the right to use your computer and information gathered for anything they want. No-one has to install this piece of software, it's your own choice.
Sometime someone said, "think before you type"... you should also "think before you download".
considering the fact that most people use kazaa to illegally download music, which does (!) harm musicians, using your spare CPU-cycles and bandwidth to pay these guys isn't even that ridiculous.
Thinking that ANY of the money raised through these trojans will go into the hands of musicians is ridiculous thinking on your part. It will either go to bolster "Brilliant's" income or go into the RIAA anti-piracy coffers. The day people turn over and decide that letting someone install a trojan onto their system in return for using a supposedly legitimate piece of software is the day we should just pull the plug. The Internet is broken. Kick the commercial noobs off.
Have an encrypted file that you need decrypted? Not a problem at all... hack into altnet and have 10 million unsuspecting users brute force the password for you! woo hoo! :-)
Have a website that you just abhor? Again, not a problem... piggypack a little DDOS app into altnet and watch the fun. And you thought the slashdot effect was bad!!
I seriously distrust the security for altnet. They claim its 100% secure, but I'm not buying it. Hell, microsoft says their products are secure!
The only thing, and by only, I don't mean it is not a biggie. In fact it is huge! But the only thing they did wrong in my opinion is not be up front with people. Spy-ware, ad-ware, and whatever you want to call this (bandwith-ware?) are all resonable ways for free software to make money IFF they are completely and clearly up front about how, what, why, and when they are doing. Not just at the beginning, but for as long as they are doing it. I have no problem with that.
[news for me, stuff that doesn't matter]
Common decency? For thieves? Why? Despite all the hue and cry about legitimate uses, the bulk of peer to peer filesharing is trading stolen files. Music, software, whatever.
When you run with the pack, expect to be hunted...
(No, I don't condone the spyware that Kazaa and/or Brilliant surrepticiously put on computers...however the whining about things like decency and so on when the original software's primary users are, in essence stealing copyrighted material, is just too ridiculous to ignore).
I'm sure someone on Slashdot can put one out for trial in the wild
it's in my head
At first, Altnet will market video and audio clips. Brilliant is negotiating with music labels and movie studios to market their material as well. The files will be copy-protected in some way, using Microsoft's digital rights management encryption technology. Restrictions could vary with the type of file or its source; a record label may let you copy a file once (onto a portable player, for example), or play it only a certain number of times.
It's good to see that record labels have finally come to their senses and are starting to use the Internet as a marketting tool. An example of this is how silverchair released their single 'The Greatest View' as a digital download to great success. However it is a pity that such downloads usually have some form of DRM like they stop playing after a certain date, but I guess some record labels aren't prepared to hand out freebies even if it means potentially increasing sales through exposure. On the otherhand other labels, usually the smaller/independent labels are quite happy to hand out free tracks with no constraints at sites like Epitonic
Speaking of Microsoft's digital rights management encryption technology, I wonder if Microsoft have released a patch for it since it was cracked last October
aus.music.scrapbook
How many times have we seen this happen? This tactic is so old it's pathetic-- Provide your service for free then try and sell it for a buck when you think you have enough users. And as old as it, they never seem to realize that it never fails to alinate their user base to no end. And I may have missed something, but since when was Kazaa's service up to the quality of something you'd pay for?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
That's a nice comparison, but I suspect that you may not have read the article too closely. From the article:
"During the KaZaA client update, users will be able to opt out of the Altnet service, the spokesperson says. The company did not say this previously."
Now we don't know this will turn out to be a full disclosure deal ("Would you like to join the new Altnet service where WE SEND YOU TARGETED ADS AND USE YOUR SPARE CPU CYCLES TO FIND AN ANTHRAX CURE?") or just a cryptic message ("Join Altnet service?"). Whether or not they're doing something questionable all depends on just how exactly they wind up going about it. And unfortunately, no one seems to have exact details on what the Altnet launch will look like.
You flagged the correct paragraph, but I believe you flagged it for the wrong reason. The paragraph worries me because it's potentially a tax on all ISP usage, whether the person is using it to host a small website, SSH to a Unix box for multiplayer nethacking, play legally purchased copies of online videogames, or engage in P2P filesharing.
Furthermore, determining who's copyrighted material is being shared will be iffy at best: If we go off commercial sales then effectively protected works (such as online videogames require unique CD keys) would receive a disproportionately higher share of piracy compensation. If we go off of what's being shared then copyright holders would have an incentive to pretend to illegally share their own copyrighted works.
As to why I believe you reason (lack of compensation for creative artists) isn't relevant: The entire point of laws to protect intellectual property is to protect the person who holds the rights to that work. By default, that would be the person who created the work. However, sometimes the creator is unable to pursue the commercial use of the work. In this case, the creator can sell his ownership of the absolute rights of the work to a new party. Once he's done so, he's no longer a part of the discussion -- it's not the creator's work anymore.
Now in the case of the recording industry, the artists are "selling" their works in exchange for receiving royalties based on the future sales of that work. They probably have other rights relating to the work that they reserve. This entire arrangement is managed by the infamous "recording contract". However, if you have a problem with recording contracts screwing over the creative artists, the place to address would be some sort of anti-trust or anti-monopoly suit or legislation, not piracy compensation legislation.
But disregarding that opinion for a bit, I must still oppose paying copywright holders instead of creators.
However, sometimes the creator is unable to pursue the commercial use of the work. In this case, the creator can sell his ownership of the absolute rights of the work to a new party.
Yes, but we must ask ourselves WHY this is the case. It used to be because in individuals weren't capable of distributing their music to the masses for sale. With the internet, this is no longer the case--anyone can put their mp3s on the internet. However, individuals have little ability to make a consumers receiving the mp3 conditional on their paying--so they still must sell their rights to the recording industry.
But if this potential legislation passes, it is an admision by the RIAA that it is no longer capable of providing this service on it's own! It can't stop consumers from getting songs without paying, it needs the government to bail it out. So it isn't needed to help distribute music, and it's no longer capable of restricting the distribution of music. Therefore the Recording Industry serves no purpose whatsoever, and the faster their employees are on the streets looking for jobs that actually accomplish something, the more productive our economy will become. However, if this pointless industry is kept alive by governmental fiat, like such piracy compensation legislation, it will be a great waste and a greater injustice.
In other words, because the ONLY remaining purpose of the RIAA members existance is to make people pay artists, the screwing over of artists MUST be addressed in piracy compensation legislation.
Of course, this all assumes that procedes to the copywright holders will be based on the number of times their song is downloaded--more likely, the government will just say "well, AOL Time Warner made X dollars before napster from record sales, so we can just assume they would make X inflation-adjusted dollars today if it were not for piracy". Thus, whether or not AOLTW actually produces more likable music, they still get paid, and THEN we'll see how much we can really screw over those artists!
This prospect offends me not merely because it is corporate welfare, but because it gives control of Art itself to an unelected, unappointed few.
So, both of you are right. The sentence he flagged was pretty evil, but everything else in the idea sucks too.
Matt Oppenheim, RIAA senior vice president of business and legal affairs.
"If I rob a bank, the fact that I haven't been arrested yet doesn't mean I haven't done something wrong," Oppenheim says. "Sharman Networks should take no comfort in the fact they haven't been sued yet."
Perhaps a better analogy would be...
Person A works in a bank. Person B is a friend of person A and says "Can you give me some of the money from your bank". Person A says "sure, come on over". So person B drives to the bank and person A gives him some cash from the vault.
The FBI decides that a theft has taken place and imprisons the Ford motor company for making the vehicle used by person B to drive to the bank.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
a) Just get Kazaa Lite. I agree.
b) Stop worrying about this. I disagree.
What we're seeing here is the most popular spyware on the internet today. So, this Kazaa controversy is going to set a precedent for future programs. Do we want programs to legally be able to run spyware on our computers or not? I vote "No," but some might vote "Yes" or "Only if it tells me about it clearly and I have to Opt-In." Your vote seems to be "I don't care."
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet