Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
atari2600 writes "Finally it has happened. Zeropaid is reporting that the Kazaalite K++ project has been shutdown by Sharman Networks. The project, which had been set up to block spy and ad ware within the Kazaa Media Desktop Program has achieved notoriety within the P2p world through its simplistic approach and success in reverse engineering the Kazaa application."
Sharman shutting down K++ for copyright infringement? Isn't that what the RIAA is trying to do to Sharman... I know, I know, sharman doesn't actually host illegal files on their site, but it seems their entire business model revolves around copying music illegally.
Maybe except this one and this one and this one and this one and...
And be it that it may that you are only interested in music, many other people do have other interests. I use kazaa k++ for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as finding beta patches to games or looking for humerous video clips.
Why should people "just buy the factory CDs anyway"? Most of them are crap. They are a waste of money. The RIAA has screwed itself with its own corporate greed by constantly promoting artists that are without talent. If I want to show the artists that I enjoy what they do, I will go to a live performance. Most artists are not seeing any substantial income from their CD sales- that gets eaten up by the record companies for a bunch of bullshit fees and promotion costs. Bands make their money from touring- and the RIAA now wants a bigger piece of that pie too.
What if the song you want is a special remix which isn't available in the stores? What if the album you want is from an artist who nobody sells and the label which origionaly released the song is not around anymore? Does going down to the store and shelling out $15 for a CD which cannot be purchased to support that artist hold water anymore? I feel this is the REAL tragady of P2P. Plus I live in the US, I happen to like Eurodance and other forms of music from Europe. However such music is not easy to find here especialy since CDNow was purchased by Amazon.
Everyone talks about getting their music for free and whatnot. For me P2P was all about discovering new music. When I was on Napster back in the day my CD purchasing budget was about $50-$100 a month! I was getting new songs which *I* liked, not what some marketing department wanted me to listen to. Also as I mentioned earler, what about preserving music which cannot be found leagaly? P2P makes for a great medium for this!
Damm u RIAA, Metalica and everyone else who was against P2P.
---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
Longer? depends how far you are from the shops, and how fast your net connection is. N/m whether the store *has* what you want!
More expensive? haha.. one is free m8, or at least should be lower cost, if you're paying for the connection anyway or someone else is.
Lower quality? you're using the wrong networks, or don't know how to use them right, or are an audiophile who thinks he can hear differences but can't ABX them.
sorry to sound like an argumentative d*ck but the net *is* a better distribution method in general, for music.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Alot of people don't seem to care about Kazaalite. To some degree I don't either; it certainly doesn't effect me. This does, however, set a very bad legal precident.
Alot of the spyware out there is destructive. It can and does slow your computer down, mess with your system settings, and in some cases completely disable your computer. Perhaps if Kazaalite was making money off this (i think they might have been..maybe it was diet kazaa) it would be a slightly different matter. Regardless, users of their own computers should have the right to disable software which causes their computer to do things which they don't want it to. Hell, forget doing it for a profit. A car manufacturer can't prevent me from buying a modified or refurbished car from a private dealer.
Alot of people out there want to pass consumer rights laws to combat the DMCA and other intrusive laws. This is not a good solution -- its only an eternal game of cat and mouse. These laws need to be repealed. Sure, let microsoft use copy-protection and other schemes for their xbox, but don't stop me, as the owner of that piece of equipment, from modifying it so that it does what *I* want it too.
I predict that the only consequences that this could have for Sherman's network are negative ones. Honestly, have the sharers with fast connections been using the proper, sherman client? Simply, NO! Can one really expect, after so long sans spyware, these advanced, high-speed users to begin to use their spyware-filled client? Simply, NO! These users will maintain the status quo by continuing to use their existing Kazaa-lite clients, or they won't share on the Kazaa network at all; either way, how does this help you, Sherman?
I don't know about you, but none of the wal-marts's within a hundred miles of me are open past 11 nor do they open before 9.
Mail-order companies also refuse to deliver there? What is this place, Antarctica? International Space Station? Los Angeles South Central?
Especailly for people like me who like the smaller, less known bands that don't sell in big (if ANY) stores.
A "smaller, less known band" is usually also harder to find at the p2p's.
But for the artists that I like, I would rather pirate their CD and send them the $20 directly.
Nice idea, but somehow everyone stops on the first half.
That's fine, assuming that everything you want is available for sale. My wife and I have several thousand CDs and an even larger number of LPs (remember those?).You'd be amazed at how many things that were issued on vinyl have never re-appeared on CD.
During the "Golden Age" of file sharing we were in that group of people who were uploading far more tracks than we ever downloaded. And the vast majority of our uploads were tracks we had ripped from vinyl and cleaned up. Tracks like obscure Siouxsie Sioux EPs and b-sides. We were the first people to rip the "Will Powers" album.
It's fine if you don't know what I'm talking about and it's also fine if you don't care. But the point is that there were a lot of people who wanted these tracks and the no way to get them. What are they supposed to do? For instance, it's the Xmas season. Labels release special tracks to radio stations - Warner Brothers' collection used to be called "Winter Warnerland" and had some really bizzare stuff. Fans want every track and every track simply isn't for sale.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
I do. We have a similar thing in the US. Every time you buy a blank audio tape, video tape, or DAT tape, Disney and others get a cut of the sale.
Why should the producers of "Martin Luther King Speaks" have to pay Disney for the privilege of producing their own program?
See the RIAA doesnt want you to sample tracks before you buy them because they want you to buy the cd to sample the track. This way no matter what they always get the sale. Now that the consumer has such an easy way to sample whole albums/track to decide where they like it or not RIAA is loosing money from you and me not buying the whole cd. They hate you and me for that. All of a sudden my cd purchase choices have gotten smarter and "I" save myself money by not spending $20 for a piece of plastic because most of the album sucks.
Thats right RIAA "I" save money by pre listening to music from P2P.
Anyways Im hung over so all ove the above might not make any sence once I reread it in a few hours.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Any idea how hard it is to find Sultana in the US? There's one mail order company I have found that has one of her CDs despite her allegedly being one of the more popular Turkish rap acts.
And where do I send my money to buy a new copy of Bjork's "Telegram" (which I had on CD and lost and now have only the case it came in). That was a fan club release of which only a few hundred copies were ever distributed - so I guess I just never get to hear those songs again? How does that help the artist? How does Bjork (or her label) profit from my never being allowed again to listen to music from her that I once enjoyed?
Siouxsie and Budgie took the initiative long ago and setup their own online label and they have been able to profit from it ever since. I have no qualms about shelling out $20 for one of their CDs because I know where most of that money is going and I've enjoyed their music for nearly 30 years now. There's a lot of other artists I'd love to send money to - Neil Young, Kate Bush, Linda, Sultana, Bjork (whose albums I have purchased in the past but, sadly, I have had to forego in the last release because of my commitment to boycott the RIAA) and Moloko.
Is it my fault most of these artists either cannot put up personal web spaces because of record company contracts or they simply don't realize there may be profit in it for them?
Even if it was, it ain't anymore. The net has been the best thing in the history of recorded music for the dedicated music fan. It's too bad it's taking so long for the artists to catch up with that revolution... but they will. Just as soon as their old contracts run out.
or slashdot the server
Slashdotting is just one of the reasons that P2P is a useful part of the internet, in addition to HTTP. The bandwidth is bourne by the people receiving the content, and the bandwidth increases the more people are requesting something. It's a pretty sensible model, and scales very well indeed.
Try setting up a server to stream video to people. Big-Brother spent millions on a server farm, with *-loads of bandwidth, all of which they paid for themselves. Do that with P2P, and all you need is a node and some DSL.
Maybe people don't realise the real gains to the internet when they whine about P2P as being some sort of illicit activity...
...when we'll see the first network (that I'd know of anyway) that'll use "friends" that'll route the content. Basicly, you send out requests looking for a friend of a friends of a friend that has what you seek, and it'll get routed through them.
Yes, it would slow the network speed to about 1/nth, where n is the average number of people you have to route through. However, n needn't be very large in practice. As has been shown with the socalled "small world" network theory, each person needs few outside links to make n small. And online, that is easier than ever.
Basicly, I'd think it would be most useful if each node kept a small search database (e.g. the share lists of all their direct friends), and if not found, pass the request on. Would make for a bit more transfers, but a (zipped) metadata file is trivially small compared to an mp3 or divx rip. Think it'd be more efficient than searching local node only. It would also give you a good list of files you could browse where transfers should be fast (direct P2P), which is always nice.
The advantages would be great: No central point of attack. No way to "scan" the network. Your identity is only revealed to your friends, who already know you. Because I know many people do not appriciate opening up their files to the entire Internet. However, they'd have no problem sharing with friends and family.
Also, your bandwidth goes to someone "close" to you. (Priority should probably be given to closer friends, both because of less links involved (more efficient) and because they're friends per se).
I think that'd be a welcome addition to the current crop of P2P nets, not to replace the current P2P nets but rather to replace the direct IRC/ICQ/MSN/FTP/whatever transfers. I definately think there's a market here for all those that have been scared off more traditional P2P nets.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Art was never a career. Get over it.
.. if you're a musician, that means concerts, or selling out into advertising.
Programming in the United States was never a career. Get over it and find something else to do now that it's being outsourced to other countries where people work for less.
People need to *WORK* for their money.
Yes, because doing composition in a studio for hundreds of hours isn't work, or anything.
Did ford get sued by the horse and cart companies?
That is an incredibly poor analogy. Ford produced a replacement for an old type of transportation. P2P apps don't make music on their own.
If you don't mind listening to 100% machine-generated music, then don't worry about supporting artists. If you want to hear original music, they need to get paid.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Multicasting fits the "old" inconvenient broadcast model where you tune into channels at a specific times to get the content you want. P2P is much more in the spirt of the web model where the users pull content when they want it.
It's also very unlikely that 2 users on the same subnet are going to want the same MP3 at the same time, which removes the efficiency argument.
PS: mentioning IP multicasting is guaranteed karma -- nothing like the crazy, unimplemented wonder technology of the future, even when it's totally dopey.
The RIAA aren't really supporting 'artists' though. They are protecting the revenues of large corporates. Record producers and managers get significantly more money than most of the young popstars today. Britney Spears is an attarctive woman who can sing. But she doesn't write her own songs and she isn't singing about experiances real to her. She isn't making original music. Popstars (who create the majority of product the RIAA is trying to protect) aren't artists, they are performers.
The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10