Slashdot Mirror
New Kazaa Lite Protects Identity
Denver_80203 writes "Found this story about the new Kazaa K++ 2.4.0 and it's new sister program which claim to protect your identity while sharing files. Any of you folk know how legit this could be? We all knew it wouldn't be long... is this the war or just another battle?"
Just in time for the next move in this move-countermove chess game. . .
is protection from R*AA, not identity protection.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
for pushing us to come up with ingenous ways to screw them. When the heck will they wake up and realize whatever they try they can't subdue filesharing. Why not just make it easier and rake in some money (read profit. anything more than 0 is...). sheesh. is the org run by a bunch of retards or what?
Both Kazaa K++ and Kazaa Lite, two very similar modifications to the Kazaa file-sharing system by Sharman Networks, now contain hooks to the PeerGuardian database of IP addresses
Database of IP addresses is going to protect us ?
Cmon now. What prevents RIAA from using anonymous IP blocks that they can purchase legally for use?
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Blocking the IP address or range of addresses that they suspect the RIAA is using. Yeah, that'll stop them. No way they'll be able to scan from a different IP. I feel safer already.
Not letting people see what other files a user has might be a bit more useful, but I don't think either of these measures is going to do much to stop the RIAA from prosecuting people.
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
The new feature that blocks users from seeing ALL files, however, is VERY smart. All 50 million users (pulled that number out of thin air, should be close) now appear to be sharing only the ONE file you searched for. Makes hiding in the sea of users fruitful.*
* Disclaimer: Don't steal music. :)
"Users of the latest versions of Kazaa Lite and Kazaa++ also have the option of disabling a function that allows remote users to see what other files the user has. "
If everyone did this, wouldn't that kill P2P file sharing? Isn't that what the RIAA wants to happen anyway?
...but the RIAA can easily get around this block of 'known' IP addresses.
To borrow from the other scourge of the internet, They'll just pay people to work from home for $1000s a week!
All they'll do is pay some one who wants money to run their program using their home DSL, Dial up or Cable Modem. Then the blocking of RIAA's 'known' addresses would become as big as every high speed residential network on the planet.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Here's a question that popped into my head while reading this story:
/is/ in that legal grey area and isn't clearly illegal, isn't it a really stupid move regardless? It seems like by hiding the people pirating the distribution-prohibited music, it helps give the RIAA /more/ reason to jack up CD prices and impose arm-bending DRM practices.
/cause/ that they can wave around like a flag in the newspapers and on TV news programs that don't do the proper amount of research into the issue.
:-/
Is this legal? If so, should we really advocate it?
If people are stealing music, and a company attempts to block the people from whom the music is being stolen, with the intent of protecting the identity of the pirates, isn't there some line that's being crossed somewhere?
And even if it
No, I don't think music piracy is the big reason why CD sales are falling. It's a larger issue than just p2p apps, but it gives the RIAA
I digress.
This is really stupid of KaZaA to do, bottom line, I'd say.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
I understand your reasonable concern about k++ not concealing your identity. However, if everyone quits sharing files to avoid possible trouble with the RIAA then they have won.
I don't agree with this because even with kazaa lite, you are sharing by default. So everything you download is automatically shared unless you click that 'don't share' box or move it from your shared directory. And considering that most kazaa users are average folks, they won't bother to configure the application or mess with any settings because they are already happily downloading music. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.) So most people are sharing whether they know it or not.
Bittorrent trackers do fail quite often. I am sure you haven't used the program enough for that to happen yet. This is a problem especially for larger .torrents. Think of one 800Kb file being downloaded 10 million times, like when the Matrix reloaded was released. 800 x 10000000 = 8000000000 or 8 billion Kb or 8000 GB of bandwidth. Now, can your fileserver sustain 8000 GB of bandwidth in tracker files, not to mention the initial few seeds? We are talking serious server-rot.
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
Well, something on your system is clearly re-installing Gator without your permission. Most adware-funded packages crippled if you forcably remove the spyware components. They will attempt to repair themselves if this happens.
The fact is, AdAware found it and removed it. You check back a few weeks later and it was back. How is that AdAware's fault?
It's down because college geeks are not at campuses for summer. Seriously, how can you make any figures on usage especially when users switch between networks and programs so much.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The thing is, the RIAA has subsisted all along on being the middleman. They don't really DO anything. Sure they promote new albums.......oh wait, no they don't, they have ad agencies and their ilk to do it. I know, they press cds......oh wait, no they don't, they outsource it to record pressing companies.
The RIAA(meaning the record companies) only exists because the artists and the consumers haven't really questioned their existence. Artists stand to make a lot of money without the RIAA in place. Why not make all music free? If you want to brave the p2p networks for different quality mp3s and such help yourself. OR, you can pay $5 directly to the artist to download the cd from their website.
Artists can make MORE than enough money from licensing their music(think movie scores, and commercial soundtracks), and live performances. Without having to pay large portions of their income to the record companies, artists stand to make a LOT more money, once the RIAA is gone.
The artists you see fighting p2p etc, are the ones that NEED the RIAA to survive. I'm talking about the sell-out corporately manufactured groups that wouldn't last if the RIAA wasn't there to spam their name all over the radio and mtv every 10 minutes. Those are the only artists that NEED the RIAA, and if we lose them, frankly, here is one slashdot poster that could care less.
It's not that I mind paying for music, but isn't it about time for a paradigm shift? Natural selection has provided an easier and better way to get new music and the record companies are a dying breed.
I have a couple thousand mp3's on my hard drive that I didn't pay for, but I also have heard a lot of new artists that I will jump at the chance to see live, or buy merchandise from.
I'm a bit of an aspiring dj, and I buy records from artists that I've heard and liked through p2p. If it wasn't for p2p those artists wouldn't have had my purchase.
The problem doesn't lie with the consumer.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Of course, eliminating the ability of the *AA to trawl the networks with bots would yield an escalation, two of which I'll guess:
I still think a Turing test for searches as you've proposed is a step in the right direction.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Actually, your challenge idea is an excellent quick fix for the R*AA problem in Kazaa (FastTrack).
Generate a challenge that is a hash code based on the file size - that way when downloading from multiple sources, no need to repeatedly enter in a response.
Can anyone think of any problems with this concept?
Judge Richard Posner, a highly regarded Seventh Circuit Judge recently wrote an opinion upholding the Aimster injunction that tends to suggest that identity protection for file sharing is more likely to support a claim for contributory infringement of the vendor than not. The opinion, while troublesome in many respects, is probably the most intelligently written articulation of the 9th Circuit Napster reasoning we are likely to see, and will likely be deemed a persuasive authority by most District Court Judges. That is, until and unless the Supreme Court speaks clearly on whether they meant what they said when they wrote in the Sony Betamax case, that regardless of evidence of wrongdoing there can be no contributory liability for distribution of technology that is capable of a substantial noninfringing use.
My problem with the Napster, and now Aimster, opinions is simply this: the 9th Circuit adopted a broader view of the liability of a technology manufacturer in the Sony Betamax case, essentially a "substantial infringing uses occur means infringement by vendor" test, which was discredited and reversed in Sony, which adopted the "substantial noninfringing use possible means no infringement by vendor," almost the very opposite result. It is hard for me to understand why, when the 9th Circuit essentially brought back the same analysis in its Napster opinion that got "sent home" in Sony, that Judge Posner would so freely adopt it here. To be fair, he explains his reasoning very, very well -- I just don't find it persuasive in view of the law and its underlying policies -- contribution isn't about expanding copyright to permit technology regulation.
To me, the question isn't whether the technology is being used poorly -- even by most users -- if it is capable of a substantial noninfringing use -- in which case there should be NO liability for contribution. (To get a sense how far the Supreme Court went, there was survey evidence before the District Court showing that 50% of the Betamax users were doing some infringement.) The question should be whether the technology vendor was affirmatively and actively inducing others to engage in infringement, as was the case in Napster and, arguably, Aimster.
Time will tell. But until the Supreme Court gets to this, it looks like the Posner account of Napster will be the final word on this question of law. Note, however, that his remarks on identity protection as indicia of wrongdoing are very troubling -- one of these days, perhaps in a few more years, perhaps, if we don't have any more tall buildings hit by planes, we really need to affirmatively try to get the courts and the Congress focused on privacy again.
Let's seperate the two - what you Kazaa is a seperate issue.
The whole idea of "stealing" a public hotspot is stupid - if it's public, then your access to it isn't stealing. If it's private, it's got 128-bit WEP encryption and is closed - right?
It's like leaving the water on in your house, watching it flow out onto the street and then crying foul when people line up with buckets...
The artist gets a certain amount for the concerts, definitely more than for CD distribution, but more importantly, the record companies overhead is completely driven by the CD sales. That means marketing, PR, manufacture, printing, distribution, etc. is all financed through those sales.
The companies are losing crazy money right now because all those "performers" (in the sense that they perform as actual musicians) can't sell their overhyped albums because there are better ways to acquire the maybe one good song on it. And that song is NOT worth 15-17 dollars.
Here's another aspect of it all...look into interviews with long lasting bands that don't suck lately (read: Metallica). I mostly buy CDs of hard rock bands from the 70s or so. Zep, Rush, Stones, Who, etc. Most of the time when they're interviewed they're pretty cagey about the subject of mp3 sharing, but for the most part, they don't care, because their sales aren't affected nearly as much as the teen pop, 15 minutes of fame MTV "artists" who don't even write their own music.
What pisses off the RIAA guys is that that is the sad truth of it for them and they know it.
The other part of it killing them is that maybe ten years ago, if I wanted my own playable on-demand copy of Cheap Trick, I Want You To Want Me, from Live at the Budekon, I bought the CD. Now, I just download it. Right there the record company lost about a 10 out of 17 dollars in operating overhead. That's 10 dollars of lights, janitors and neo-nazi RIAA member executives that I just stole from them.
So now there's another whole market lost for them. Unless you're really into, why buy yesterday's music?
That's why their pissed. And just remember, we're not talking about "smart" corporations anyway. Time Warner is one of the biggest music distributors out there, and who did they align with? Yeah AOL, that's who.
Pretty much works the same way as Security Through Obscurity if you ask me.
Although it blocks users from browsing your files and blocks queries from known malicious IP's It would not stop the RIAA from downloading from you from a not yet known malicious IP, Proxy, wierd "Save the Music Industry" Campaingn where they pay you to hunt down P2P Users, ETC.
Basicially if they do a search for "St. Anger" on Kazaa, Download it, and verify that it is "St. Anger" they have an IP going to somewhere. And that IP now has a big red Bullseye on it whether it's a proxy, a user or whatever else that could obscure your idenity.
The only way to truthfully be anonymous is to be encrypted, swarmed and stored all over the place by hundreds of users like Freenet does it, and even that gives them an IP to paint a target on with the excuse that even though you dont know what your PC is sending thats no excuse to infringe. Although the courts would have to decide that.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
They could just send 'cease and desist' to each single user.. and request letter to the corresponding ISP to shut the user down.
:(
One file is just as 'illegal' as one thousand..
Only costs them a few pennies to send it out. Then prosecute for big bucks the people that don't obey the order.
Not much different then the old days of mass mailing US-mail Spam.. I bet they would eve get a bulk rate
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The threat of being accosted by the RIAA is reduced significantly when one has a dynamic IP. Even moreso, when one has a dynamic IP that changes on an hourly basis, and is not tracked by the ISP providing IP services. One feasible way to foil the RIAA's plans to track down users based on IP, are for ISPs to band together and establish a new "anonymous" internet access standard. ISPs which don't keep logs of which IP belonged to which user at which time, and then forcing a new IP on every user on an hourly (or hourly + random number of minutes) basis.
.. the proxy network needs to be depolyed as an anonymous internet access service, it needs to be marketed like that, and if need be it needs to be defended in court like that.
Then when the RIAA with their lawyers and their hounds and their warrants show up on the doorstep at SomeISP.com, SomeISP.com can shrug and say "Sorry, we don't know who was using those IPs at those times; we don't log that information. Oh and those IPs that you're curious about aren't unique to a single user from one hour to the next, either."
Although such an extravagant system is hardly required if ISPs will just...not keep logs of who has which IPs at what times. That right there is really all that's necessary in order to put a stop to the threat of the RIAA. If they've got no way to "lookup" your IP and "resolve" it to your name and address, they're up the creek without a paddle. heh. Unfortunately I think that this kind of tracking is required by law. =\
An intermediate proxy layer is probably required to protect peoples' identities while maintaining responsibility to the law. If no data were transferred directly from peer to peer, but all data passed through an anonymizing proxy service, then there would be no way to track individual IPs to individual users. The proxy service would have a range of IPs that it would block from using the service; mostly overseas numbers and government agencies. But the proxy service would have to be generically available for any level and type of data transfer on the internet, so nobody can say "That proxy network that soandso developed is just there to make piracy easier!"
To make an analogy, creating this proxy service is much like becoming a gun manufacturer. People will show up on your doorstep (the RIAA, their hounds, their lawyers) and proclaim loudly that you are irresponsible and you make only tools of destruction (destruction of their capitalistic heirarchy which dictates that they get boatloads of cash and the music creators themselves get jack). But when you refute their claims you need to make sure that you do so from a platform of freedom and independence, a platform of neutrality that doesn't advocate breaking the law, but one that does acknowledge that it may be possible for the law to be broken through the use of its products. Care must be taken to portray the proxy service as a simple anonymizing service without advocating any one single use or purpose. Smith & Wesson don't say that their guns are only good for killing people; but they do say that they make damn fine guns. It's all in the marketing and the picture you paint for people to see.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
No. This is the same thing as 'the locked door' analogy. If it is advertised as a public, free, hotspot- you can assume it is safe to use it. But otherwise it isn't.
If I lock my door on my house, you can still easily get in. That doesn't mean me not locking (or forgetting to lock) the door is inviting you to come in.
Jury nullification is very rare. It is certainly not something you can count on to say with 100% certainty that "the RIAA will *LOOSE*. And they know it."
With all due respect, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking.
This also isn't realistic. If they lose one at the trial court level, it isn't a binding precedent. (Particularly if the loss is due to jury nullification.) It isn't like they can't afford to file more suits. All they have to do is keep trying until they find a jury that actually follows the law (which shouldn't be that hard to do) and then ruin somebody. Then they will have their headlines and their head on a pike.
Anyone who thought they were safe after a single case of "jury nullification" would be an utter fool.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)