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.'"

Comments

Re:They want to use it for "legitimate" downloads?

[irony nazi]

Aagh! The irony nazi's summary of the current state of affairs:

1. Stealing MP3s is illegal. Somebody will post an intelligently worded comment that will be modded to +5 based upon this premise. Most of the other comments that point this out will be modded -1 Troll.

2. RIAA Screws over artists and consumers. Like we didn't know this already. </sarcasm>

3. Kazaa is a file sharing network, even if it is a *spyware* file sharing network. If the RIAA feels it can make more money without the Kazaa Spynet, then it won't negotiate with Kazaa. Plain and simple. If the RIAA geniuses have an idea that they think will make bigger $$$ then they will do it. They will then sue Kazaa who needs illegal MP3s to make their network popular, yet will be sued if they use them. (napster all over again).

4. RIAA will come out with their own draconian file format and continue to blame illegal file sharing whenever the consumer chooses getting more *value* for their money (via trading MP3s) as opposed to getting less *value* for more money (restricted and encrypted non-MP3 formats). Personally, I blame capitalism for this consumer decision, not file sharing. I feel that I have a right, as a consumer, to choose the file format, distribution technique, and amount that I pay. Although this argument shouldn't be used to justify illegal copying of music, in a sense, one can assign a $$ value for breaking the law. I would surely pay a small amount of money for music just to know that I wasn't doing anything illegal. I would place even more value (i.e. pay more) if I knew that the artist was getting a significant portion of what I was paying.

A long time ago (~1996), I said that the recording industry will never be able to do away with an open audio format (at least as open as MP3 is). The reason why is because they will have to offer something with much more *percieved* value than what I can download for free and play on any music device. No more $14 CDs (a new CD was $14 at the time).