NeoNapster's NeoAudio Rips Off CDex

mydoghasworms writes "There's an interesting thing going down at CDex. Apparently the CDex application has been ripped off by NeoNapster, replacing the logo and adding some spyware and adware. (For those not in the know, CDex is a very nice, very easy-to-use GPL (as in Open Source) Audio CD Ripper). The user comments at download.com make for a very entertaining read."

Comments

the sincerest form of flattery

[tps12]

Isn't this the end result of all Free Software? At some point, in every product category, the Free program will surpass all the commercial competitors (as has been proven by ESR and RMF on multiple occaisions). Once that happens, the commercial companies will have no choice but to start distributing the Free alternative with minor alterations. This is the goal for which we should be working.

Oh, the delicious irony

[duck_prime]

The problem is not so much that their taking someone's GPL'd program and redistributing it under a new name, but that they are removing the original author's (Albert L Faber) copyright notices.

Of course, the CDex people are pillars of the copyright-respecting community... ;)

<wide-eyed-ingenuous-look>

Maybe they can report the NeoNapster folks to the RIAA, as DMCA violators.

</wide-eyed-ingenuous-look>

Stop the insanity!

[jabber01]

I'm going to go out on a Karmic limb here and say something sure to not make me any friends.

What's the big freaking deal?

CDex is used to rip CD's, and this music is then very often shared, against the terms on which it is licensed. I don't care if "you" are honest about it, the fact is most people are not.

Now, someone gives a GPL ripper the same respect, and everyone is up in arms? For shame!

Hypocrites, the lot of you. Share and share alike when it benefits you, and when someone else does it to no advantage to you, they are the enemy? Fascinating. Truly.

The fact that this is a copy of CDex should have no consequence on anything. If this isn't about AdWare/SpyWare, it's about tasting ones own medicine. That is all.

Re:Stop the insanity!

[jabber01]

I never said anything should be banned. Tools are tools, and the usage of the tool is potentially inapropriate, not the tool itself.

The violation of GPL is exactly my point though. If someone has a copy of music, that they are using in violation of the terms of usage - explicitly they're listenning to it, and keeping a digital copy without owning the original medium, it's not a fair use copy, and they are stealing. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the definition in the current law, yet the geeks cry foul that they're being made to respect the license.

Similarly, cutting the credits from the source is a violation of the fair use of GPL. And the geeks cry foul because NeoNapster violates license.

Push the Hypocrite Button

[nukeade]

I'm tired of the people who feel the need to play holier than thou or justify their $3000 worth of CDs by crying "hypocrites!" every time this comes up.

There is a big difference between plagarism and copyright violation. For all of the GBs of MP3s I've downloaded and uploaded again, I never changed a single one. Never put my name on it, or made any derivative works, and I bet very few if any slashdotters have. That is the difference between taking a book, putting your name on it, and reselling it and making a copy of the book for a friend. I personally believe that information should be free. I agree with slashdot here, however, because plagarism is without a doubt wrong.

I don't care where you get your music. If you feel filesharing is wrong or if you have the money to buy CDs, fine, but if you are going to start tearing down others because you feel that filesharing is flamingly wrong, I ask you to make your point directly rather than make comparisons that simply don't work.

~Ben