Slashdot Mirror
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."
I love CDEX, especially it's built-in ogg support, and now it even id's them correctly. Makes for very fast, easy ripping of my CD collection to the wonderful ogg vorbis format.
If they were going to rip someone off, atleast they picked the best one.
does this mean that we can get all of the source for the spyware and adware? that could make for some fun. or at least it would take less time to disable it.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
Not only does this company's website point to NeoAudio, which uses CDEx code, but NeoNapster, which is straight out of any of the Gnutella codebases, and is Yet Another Gnutella Client, but with spyware added.
I can't wait for their upcoming release: NeoLinux with the NeoGNOME desktop environment.
What's the big deal here? They aren't in violation of the GPL. They have the source available for download. Why is this news again?
They at least made the source available.
Is this Legal?
</silly_talk>
Did anyone notice the neoaudio screenshot? They didn't even bother to change the CDex screenshot. I've been using CDex for years, and it's sad to see some moron try to pass it off as his own work.
Their feedback URL is http://download.com.com/1200-20-750060.html?tag=su bnav
ÕÕ
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. The author's copyright of the program must be maintained in order for the GPL to be effective, otherwise people (like these) could completely jack the code and release it under any liscense they want.
But we should consider ourselves lucky that they're releasing it under the GPL and the source code is still available at the bottom of this page.
.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
That said, it's still a nasty rip-off, and I hope people use CDex (a very fine piece of software, incidentally) instead.
Now, this is what the GPL is intended to protect against. Some company using code to make a product and then selling it for profit (at least from spyware) with no return to the community for what they used. Now, I'd love to see a full all-out-GPL-whack-a-thon against thier makers; but moreso I'd really love to see the source of all the spyware released under the GPL.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Huh? How is CD-EX a "stealer"? I'm assumming you are a troll.
That's probably more interesting than the audio part.
And this is exactly why everyone should be wary of using the GPL for their work! Look how it is going to hamper this nice American business in their attempts to add their contribution to the software economy. These people will probably be shut down, all thanks to the evil GPL. Richard Stallman is a fanatic! Don't listen to him!
Just think: if the CDex developers had used a safer license, like the BSD license, then they would not now be in the unfortunate situation of hindering American business. It's tantamount to terrorism, I tell you!
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Similar to the Perlmonks Vote for Paco campaign, this might be a chance to give a spy/adware product the lowest cnet rating ever!!!
They could also con a band into making unlicensed merchandise bearing their logo, and then sue them too :)
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
While the source is available for download, they've removed/changed copyright strings. That is a violation of the GPL. That's what.
My question is, where did they get that positive rating on the download page? It doesn't show up on the ratings from the slashdot article link.
Hmm...
Older versions of Adobe Premiere on the Mac would simply open an audio CD as an audio file. Newer versions don't do that. Of course, when Premiere did that, a CD-ROM drive cost more than a PC does now.
SIDS is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Dude, you better watch out who you're having sex with.
Are these guys just trying to make a buck off of CDex and Napster without much if any work?
So when does Napster come out and beat on them for trademark violation?
For those not in the know, CDex is a very nice, very easy-to-use GPL (as in Open Source) Audio CD Ripper
Ooooooohhhhhh... thaaaaat GPL. And here I am confusing an open source licence with damnit... can't come up with anything witty that GPL could be an acronym for. Damn you job, damn you.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
It's still not very nice, but at the bottom of "NeoAudio.rtf" in the source (available from their site) it says:
I guess this and the GPL licence means they might technically be doing nothing wrong.
Meep meep
There's nothing wrong with repackaging GPL software and adding spywares, this is called "fair use".
Je t'aime Stéphanie
The exact same thing happened when Morpheus used Gnucleus as the basis for their new product. Much like MusicCity, NeoNapster isn't in violation of the GPL and offer source for their application. Isn't "ripping off" (derivative works) what the GPL encourages? There shouldn't be a problem here, if the project doesn't like someone else using their code, then they SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THE GPL.
Is your browser retarded?
The GPL also involves crediting the original authors, especially if you haven't made any significant changes.
According to:
http://www.neonapster.com/license.html they've retained the GPL.
and:
http://www.neonapster.com/download.html gives credit to the CDex project.
Before you guys jump in and start flaming, do a little bit of homework. Could be easily a Galeon/Mozilla type thing. Heck - a Netscape/Mozilla thing. GPL software is there for the sharing - that's what the GPL is for. Linux is repackaged over and over again by many distro's - no one is whining about that, are they? "Redhat ripped off Linux from Linus!". "Mandrake is copying Redhat!". Come on guys, before you knock it, research it. They may very well have room for critisism, and I'm not endorsing them - but I'm not going to bash them until I know for sure.
I develop code myself, and having a bunch of morons flaming me because they're too lazy to research my license and credits could very well encourage me to take the closed source proprietory route...I wouldn't blame these guys if they did just that. And what about all the potential developers watching the shark-fest from the sidelines. Do you think they'll want to jump into the fray after watching this? I know Slashdot tends to jump in before testing the waters, but please, reserve judgement before you make a fool of yourself.
It seems the GPL community is very antagonistic and overly fanatical to the point of witch hunts. Let's not burn any witches yet until we've without a doubt verified that they're indeed witches!
SIDS? Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?
If you're young enough to get *that* you've got no business having sex.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
The user comments at download.com make for a very entertaining read
Yes they do. Especially this insightful gem from Rob Malda - about 35 comments down.
"read the other comments"
they speak for themselves
Thanks for the tip Rob!! I almost forgot what I was doing while reading the comments.
NeoNapster has been around for quite a while, amazing it took so long for Slashdot to notice. All they have ever been is a rip off of the GPLed Gnucleus client, just like Morpheus and the whole series of other clones.
The issue here is that this is GPLed software linked with non-free libraries (spyware) and riddled with other GPL violations (missing copyright notices, incomplete source distibutions, etc.). Most of the above mentioned clones do this, some going as far as linking their clones to obviuosly commerical libraries while at the same time pretending to "embrace" the GPL. The Gnucleus author, John Marshall, has been extremely tolerant on the issue, mostly because his interest lies in coding, but if you wanted to, this could be a huge legal case.
Taking someone else's creative work and claiming it as your own isn't very ethical to say the least... not to mention the fact that they added features that make the software *less* desirable to the end user and make the original author look bad if someone confuses the "stolen" software with the original. This is no different than knock-off imitations of major name brand retail products... Everyone usually gets hurt here: the end user gets poor quality product, the knock-off company gets a bad name or gets sued by the real company, and the real company gets hurt by the brand confusion and their reputation may be damaged by the inferior imitation products.
I agree, however I notice the people who use this argument are the people who use the tools for dishonest ends, people who want to keep it to maintain their unfair use, soley because there maybe a fair use, somewhere...
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
I have been using FreeRip for about a year, with no problems whatsoever. Even has CDDB supports, and can rip to wav's and Ogg as well. Enjoy!
Th
Not everyine who uses CDeX is a music pirate. I use it to ripp my CDs onto my (internal LAN) server so I can listen to the CDs I bought (and still have posession thereof) without hauling my CD collection all over the house. I have never given away a single song I ever ripped.
And just because a tool CAN be used to violate a law, does not make it a violation to have or use it. I can use a crowbar to break into your house, or even to kill you with. Does that make me owning a crowbar illegal? What if I use my crowbar only for legal purposes - ripping out the boards in my house, or prying rocks loose? Is it still illegal?
Get a grip, son. It's the manner in which the tool is used, not the tool itself that makes it a violation of the law or not (unless some asshat DMCAesque law says otherwise).
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
You're allowed to do all that, but one goal of the open source and free software licenses is to insure that the original authors retain credit. So, you can reuse the code, change the name, modify, redistribute, even sell to your heart's content, as long as you don't misrepresent the work of others as your own.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
...who see the irony in this? Is this the very same group stating publicly that they don't care about artists copyrights and violate them regularly? Sucks when it happens to you huh? Perhaps you'll learn from this and grow-up? Nah...this is Slashdot afterall.
And Xerox and other brands of photocopiers are often used to make copies of books. Some of those copies even get handed out in classrooms for student use, in violation of the original copyright of the source material. So since Xerox machines can be used to break copyright, we should ban them!
And don't even get me started on VCRs. I mean, can you believe people record TV programs, then give those copies to their friends?!?!?! It's criminal, I tell you. Once VCRs are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCRs. And Xerox machines.
Oh, and don't pay any attention to those photocopies of the tables from my HTML, Perl, MySQL, and other reference books so that I can have everything in a single binder. And those tapes on my VCR of last week's Enterprise episode? Don't touch them, they're going on EBay to the highest bidder. Oh, and all those songs in my Rio? Yeah, they're from my personal CD collection, just like the remixed CD's I put together for when I work out in the yard or at the Gym, from before I had my Rio. Send in the MPAA and RIAA, but be warned, I copied directions out of a book at the library about how to make a bomb, and tapes an episode of Junkyard Wars that had the inspiration for my delivery vehicle, so I'm ready for them.
The problem, mister Karmic Limb, is that they're editing out existing copyright information, and replacing it with theirs. No one has said "We don't want them using our code", the complaint is that the original authors are not being given credit for the work. This is where the GPL violation is...
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
I agree. However, I'm also going to ask, do you have any illegal mp3s on your computer? Any at all? just one? Has anyone ever downloaded a copyrighted song you've ripped? Of my massive collection of mp3s, I know I don't have any rights to several.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
find out which ad suppliers their spyware uses and take out an ad for CDex?
That way someone using NeoDex or NeuNucleus will have an ad pop up with some text like
"Tired of all the pop ups, use CDex instead of NeoDex. It's the same thing without all the ads!"
"CDex - always ad-free!"
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
Please Support them. I'm sure every bit helps, I've just sent my $5USD.
put the what in the where?
I've got a cd burner, and I don't remember a single time I've used it for good and not evil!
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
I'm not defending NeoNapster, I think it's pretty lame, but you've got to admit that if CDex wasn't GPL'd this wouldn't happen. There is no way you can be upset about this, the license specifically allows it.
Username taken, please choose another one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the todo.txt in the source dist:
These are things that need do'n, if you would like to take on one of these list items please email me at swabby@c0re.net and I can give you some more insight on the problem and advice.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
No worries -- that's already been accomplished.
Out of 34 votes, 0% positive, 100% negative votes. Can't get much lower than that, now, can you?
Hey, NeoNapster, any comments? That's gotta be mighty embarrassing.
This move helps show one of the ways open source will be used in the future -- for less than the most admirable goals. Adware, spyware, etc, are probably just the tip of the iceberg. The GPL doesn't mean the software you've donated tens to hundreds of hours to will always be used in "pure" ways. There will probably be times where what's changed is much more negative than just a few logos -- to the point you might *not* want your copyright sitting (or at least your name) on each copy.
:^)
For instance, let's take Limewire, a Gnutella client. It'd be a pretty simple addition to the code to make your entire hard-drive available on the Gnutella network. It'd also be pretty easy to add something to track what kinds of searches you're using. Making the source available doesn't (iirc) require it's up for download, and how many end users really check before installing? Not to mention that a good enough coder could probably get that code in there in such a way it'd take you hours just to piece out that's what the code's doing or they'd hide it as an addition under an "auto-update feature".
GPL says that source must be available, but doesn't say anything about it being commented or written to be easy to understand -- or to tip its hand to show its more underhanded features!
I enjoy open source software, especially LGPL'd projects. If you can find enough pieces to a neat idea you've got in your head, *BAM*, you're making software you'd never have had the change to create otherwise. And the projects improve because there's no reason not to check your additions to these LGPL projects back in to the central source once you're done. Everybody wins!
But if my idea is to secretly track searches or to collect personal information or to download and install spyware applications, these [L]GPL'd projects are every bit [har har] as helpful. Instead of having to implement from scratch, I can grab something useful from sourceforge, tease a few lines that connect to my server, obfuscate my code, call it open source, and market to the masses like mad.
Anyhow, just a long rant to say, "This just goes to show that simply because it's GPL doesn't mean it's good," and, "Don't think that your contributions to an open source project entitle you, literally or figuratively, to mandate the way and for what purpose that code's ultimately used."
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
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
The music-stealing industry has never been particularly honorable.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
i sometimes use the cd burner at work for good, but today, i used it to copy a kenny g (my users have horrible taste in music!) cd for someone, i back some files up for people, but for school, i have my laptop, and vpn/offline files for remote use, as for making mix cds of cds i own, first off i'm not a fan of compilations, cds have a transient, wholly ambient feel that you need to listen to in order, and secondly, i own maybe 5 cds compared to my 7,000 mp3s
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
yes, i may have been making a generalization, not everyone does it, however, you must admit that there are quite a few that do it, or there wouldn't be the worry about piracy, think about it for a second.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
NeoNapster is the p2p program
NeoAudio is cdex rebranded w/ spyware
They didn't add jack!
That's very noble of you. I commend you. However you are in the minority of the mp3 community.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
....get the source... edit their notices out and then put it out as the NEW! NeoAudio
Get your Unix fortune now!
At lest MS, apple, et al had to do some work. NeoNapster is basically
sed
Thomas Galvin
CDEX Screenshot
NeoAudio Screenshot
Still, if you don't distribute the binaries, there's nothing to prevent you from linking in whatever code you choose. And I suppose that you can distribute your source if you choose without distributing the binaries.
Since I don't know how these operations work, it seems reasonable to me that the proprietary parts might lay only in the non-redistributed software, which would, as I understand it, be quite legit.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Oh come on... you don't need to nitpick typos :P
He obviously meant SIDA.
Haha check out this post in the user comments.. notice the author. Those dirty pranksters..
....
Commander Taco 05-Aug-2002 11:17:21 AM
"Wow! The best of its kind I have seen!"
This is an incredibly well made piece of software. It completely outperforms CDEX and the SpyWare is only enabled if you request it, and in return, you get 100+ free songs. This completely rocks. Don't use anything but
"I either want less corruption, or more chance
to participate in it." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
This NeoNapster thing is under GPL. If they added spyware or whatever, all you need to do is get their source, rip out the objectionable parts and distribute NiceNeoNapster. Maybe you could call it NeoNapsterNoSpyware so it will show up on all searches right next to NeoNapster.
Now if NeoNapster did rip out all copyright notices from CDex, that is illegal. Under the terms of the GPL, if you violate the terms of the GPL, you lose the right to use the code. This is what would make NeoNapster illegal.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Sure, the better ones do name it a "remix of Artist ABC", but sampling has become a widely accepted form of musical expression.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Basically look around sourceforge. It's probably worth your time just to look around for things you might need but not even be thinking about. Such as:
CD-DA X-Tractor (what I use to rip CDs)
Miranda - The best ICQ clone I've seen
Audacity - A audio editing program that needs a bit of work, but actually works pretty well for basic needs.
Just to name a few
I'm unsure why 1998-99 somethingawful.com gimmicks are making a resurgence on the internet. Maybe a bunch of people just discovered the site or something. "YUO = TEH SUKC" is another SA gimmick making a resurgence. It's all a bit annoying.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Looks like CDex doesn't rip CD-->ogg.
Anyone have a good open source recommendation for that?
As of now, I see 200+ "Thumbs Down" comments with no "Thumbs Up" comments...and 32000+ downloads. Go figure.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
I understand that the reason of the icompatibility between GPL and BSD with ad clause code is because (old) BSD forces you to mark the copyright of Berkeley regents.
I understand that GPL doesn't involve copyright strings. The reason is that if you take small pieces of code from 100 GPL projects, it's uncomfortable to include 100 notices of copyright.
Am I wrong? Must (legally) the author that copies bits of GPL code include the copyright of the previous authors?
I thought it was just a thing of manners and reputation, not legal duty.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
There's nothing wrong with repackaging GPL software and adding spywares IF the user is told what changes have occurred in the repackaging.
And, of course, if the software comes complete with a written offer to make the source code of the spyware available for no more than the cost of distribution... after all, the spyware is now GPLed...
What would Lemmy do?
Looks like our trolls, including the Alan Thicke Is Dead one, headed over there. Kinda like Australia, Britain, and convicts.
Let's hope they stay there and lead a productive life instead of returning here. (yeah right...)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Only the copyright holders can do that , so whoever mentioned in the copyright string. They may not have the resources, which is why FSF suggests you assign copyright to them, so that they can take up the fight.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid