Slashdot Mirror
Morpheus Infiltrates Other P2P Networks
An anonymous reader writes "Morpheus was the number one post-Napster P2P app until Sharman Networks took over KaZaa and got them bumped off the FastTrack network. Now Morpheus is back on FastTrack, according to MP3NewsWire, tapping into it and the other leading networks through a beta of the NEOnet technology in the just-released version 4. Thomas Mennecke over at Slyck speaks more about it with Michael Weiss, CEO of StreamCast Networks." prostoalex also points to a ZDNet article discussing this new version of Morpheus, and notes the Download.com warning that: "Third-party applications bundled with this download may record your surfing habits, deliver advertising, collect private information, or modify your system settings."
Why would anybody ever download something bundled with the crap referred to here, much less install it? Such "third-party applications" make the main product worse than useless.
I'm surprised there isn't a completely open-source, distributed P2P filesharing application widely available to people. Such a thing, when advertised as been spyware/adware-free, would likely be a huge hit. But I guess the "distributed" problem is a tough one, and it's the only way to avoid having to host some sort of master server (which would be expensive).
BitTorrent is probably the closest thing we have so far, but it doesn't provide an index or anything along those lines...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Some 70 to 80 per cent of Internet traffic is already P2P related. I wonder if a sizable portion of this is pure query traffic. I would assume that applications such this one that support multiple networks would be cause for increased query traffic all around. Therefore in my opinion it's hard to say if this development is a good thing at all.
(This sig intentionally left blank)
b) Have some sort of way to filter out the fake files put out by record companies and the RIAA. Check files, particularly MP3s, for filler, or repetitions of strings (the usual cause of noise on fake MP3s). Make users able to chose the actual content that they are after. Perhaps also blacklisting of unreliable users from a user level?
In other words, make it as simple as possible for you to infringe on someone else's copyright.
I tell you what, why don't you write such an app with such a filter and see how long it takes for RIAA and the courts to come down on you like a ton of bricks for deliberately designing a tool that a) stops them from posting their own material, whilst, b) helping people infringe on their copyrights as easily as possible.
Writing a P2P application isn't against the law, but I bet designing a P2P application that uses such measures to intentionally block RIAA (or any other copyright holder) from trying to track down individuals that are wantonly infringing on their copyrights will be severely frowned upon by the courts.
Contrary to what you might believe, you don't have a right to infringe on copyrights. And the Napster, etc court decisions decided you can't use the "unlimited friends" defence to protect your ass. If you want the latest Britney Spears/Eminem/Outkast/whoever CD then you can pay for it.
Now watch me get flamed to hell and back by half of Slashdot nation. Like I care about karma: if I did I wouldn't be writing this post, would I?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Just face it... P2P isn't going away. P2P clients are like Whack-A-Mole: As soon as you smack (sue, crash, buy out, whatever) one, three more pop up.
So, RIAA, do like the government strategy : If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I'm waiting for the RIAA 'official' P2P network that allows record labels to profit from the spyware ads on a user's machine. Not like I'd use it, but... it's a better (and more profitable) idea than suing 15-year-olds. And it makes the RIAA look like the good guy!
"In other words, make it as simple as possible for you to infringe on someone else's copyright."
Actually, no. This makes it even easier to prevent copyright infringement, its all about who controls the blacklists. Really though, these features are just useful, just like a gun is useful. Whether its used for 'good' or for 'bad' is all perspective, but either way its got use.
"Like I care about karma: if I did I wouldn't be writing this post, would I?" As someone who hit the karma cap with 'goatse.cx' in their name, I can tell you this is the typical counterculture troll that gets modded insightful by the same people that listen to Limp Bizkit. (this now being the counter-counter-culture troll that gets +3 informative, but then -4 for this amendment.)
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
I recently saw "Poisoned" being used on a Mac OSX box and it brought home to me the generally sucky nature of P2P on Windows I had been using KaZaA + DietK but switched to a recent build of KaZaAliteK++ which is much leaner and more friendly, but can't match Poisoned's multinetwork, spyware-and-adware-free smoothness Which P2P apps would /.ers recommend for the Windows platform?
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
how is it legal and supports FastTrack network at the same time?
It is perfectly legal to use the FastTrack network without authorisation from Sharman... they don't own the computers that constitute the network, they just own the software that is usually used to run it.
If you write your own re-implementation by reverse engineering KaZaA to determine how it works, that is perfectly legal. For the same reason that, for instance, Wine is a perfectly legal piece of software.
So, basically, Morpheus has a re-implementation of FastTrack from scratch.
What is possibly a little concerning is that it appears to be a download-only implementation...
so basically emule?
a) it's opensource.
b) it generates checksums for files, making it easy for sites such as sharereactor.com and shareconnector.com to offer quality-assured releases.
Soo...let me see if I get this right. You attempted to download an operating system kernel from an untrusted p2p source? You should just be glad you didn't get another kind of backdoor action...
Isn't funny how an application that distributes mp3 illegally is now breaking into other applications that do the same thing, which instead of doing only one illegal action it is now doing two
I wasn't aware of anything you couldn't get over BitTorrent. Why would you mess with spyware-ridden software and risk getting subpoenaed by the RIAA for slow download rates and fake files?
These things go in fashions - Napster lost it and Kazaa probably will too. People will use whatever is easiest, safest and has the most files, and if the major pirates^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sharers hated spyware and were using KL, they'll up sticks and move to eDonkey or whatever when KL gets switched off. The effort of doing so is negligible.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
OK I'll bite. Copyright violation *is not theft*. Find me a piece of legislation (not an RIAA press release) that says it is and I'll buy you a large virtual drink... Morally speaking, in your universe it may be theft. But not in most people's. Try asking a random selection of 1000 people the following question: "Am I a thief if I make a tape of a friend's (copyrighted) CD?" (this is a form of copyright violation most people, even not computer literate, can understand and relate to). If you can honestly say that more than a small percentage will agree that you're a thief, then I think you're deluded. So: If you do it, then you *are* morally a thief since you believe yourself to be. The rest of us aren't.
Now this?
"Third-party applications bundled with this download may record your surfing habits, deliver advertising, collect private information, or modify your system settings."
When the average person ELECTS to use something even after reading this warning, you can be assured that the Internet has really and truly become McNet. (McDonald's reference for those of you unfamiliar with it) Hmmm... now that I think about it, it sounds like the Microsoft EULA, and plenty of people accept that every day. ;P
A sad day indeed. A sad, sad day...
Un-news
The amount of thievery...right to steal.
Hey, this is an article about filesharing! Who do you think steals (=takes away, so someone does not have something he had before) what from whom and how does it relate to the article?
I don't think so..
porn maybe, and some of that is p2p..
do you have a basis for that claim?
Deal with it. Boycott or abstain, but overpricing doesn't give you any legal or moral right to steal.
Moral rights are determined by self.
That isn't copyright violation in the U.S.. It's called Fair Use and is protected by law. It's why recordable [audio] CDs and tapes have a levy on them which goes to the R.I.A.A.. The difference between doing that and downloading over the internet is that there is a limit imposed due to physical proximity which is only overcome by paying to ship the media to your friend. You must also pay for the media. Downloading over the internet removes these two key points which led the courts to declare such usage legal in the first place.
So now that I've given an analysis on the differences between the two (physical sharing vs. online sharing) with respect to how the courts view them, please stop trying to justify online infringement by citing Fair Use.
Moral rights are determined by self.
Then you'd better hope that you don't run into someone who thinks murder is ok...
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
Try asking a random selection of 1000 people the following question: "Am I a thief if I make a tape of a friend's (copyrighted) CD?" (this is a form of copyright violation most people, even not computer literate, can understand and relate to). If you can honestly say that more than a small percentage will agree that you're a thief, then I think you're deluded.
Let me tell you what I believe. Firstly: I believe that the majority is not always right. They are living in a dreamworld so to speak. So you can not prove whether copyright violation is theft simply by asking people if it is.
Therefore let me present another example of copyright violation, and you can tell me whether or not it is theft.
Imagine that you own an engineering firm that designs heavy haul trucks. One of your engineers has resigned and taken a job elsewhere. Before he leaves he uploads your AutoCad drawings (like source code to the manufacturing business) to his server at home.
If I understand your point of view correctly he has not taken any physical item of worth from your company. He has only copied your designs. Therefore no theft has occurred.
I believe that copying, a copyrighted work is theft and it applies to all sorts of intellectual property such as proprietary software, AutoCad schematics, music, and art.
It would be a man's moral right to kill a man he finds in bed with his wife. Still, that offers no salvation from the legal system.
Fear of punishment should keep them in line. That's separate from morality.
Then you'd better hope that you don't run into someone who thinks murder is ok...
Indeed, but the grandparent poster is still correct. We are socialized into certain morals. Some morals, such as murder being wrong, are held almost universally. Yet, there have been cultures such as the Romans with their gladiators that have somewhat trumped this moral law. Morals help glue society together, but they are never absolute, and are ultimately determined by the individual.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.