Slashdot Mirror
Secret Kazaa Documents Revealed in Court
Dan Warne writes "A fascinating range of Kazaa's internal documents were revealed in Federal Court in the ongoing court case against the Australian-based company today. One extraordinary philosophical manifesto by the company's chief technical officer showed that he was aware that Kazaa's activities were a huge legal risk. He also feared being 'out-innovated' by other P2P programs that didn't come bundled with adware. "if consumers can connect to FT (as well as Gnutella 2, eDonkey and Bittorrent) and it has no ads or adware then it would seem a good choice," Philip Morle says in the his manifesto. The documents are full of all sorts of other admissions-that-you'd-be-crazy-to-put-on-paper like how Kazaa employees "hate" installing the Kazaa Media Desktop on their machines because all the bundled adware slows your machine down and can hijack your web browser."
well that says it all...
Kazaa contains Spyware! Lock up your daughterboards!!!
Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
If you go to Kazaa right now, however, you'll note that they say that there's no spyware bundled with the software. Thanks, but no thanks...I'm sticking with bittorrent and Winmx.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
With regard to forcing their spiteful employees using their own products, KaZaa ain't no preacher for the general populace.
Only old people use Kaaza. Rest are addicted to BitTorrent :)
Never write anything in a letter, e-mail, diary, memo or any other quotable medium that you don't want the other guys lawyer holding up in court.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Posted with Mozilla...
just incase of the slashdot effect:
The Sale of Kazaa
Team Sharman came to court today with a strategic shift in direction: the revolution would now be a secret.
Their legal team presented a draft set of undertakings designed to suppress non-confidential documents from the media. It could have been a great plan if the Judge didn't think it was so crap, and with no supporting evidence for the basis of claim to confidentiality, Judge Wilcox swept away the majority of the claims for confidentiality by Altnet and Sharman.
There were 30 Altnet documents and four Sharman documents they didn't want publicised. We'll go through the Sharman documents today, and the Altnet documents later in the week.
The first item for discussion here at the Daily Dispatch is a 28 page contract between Kazaa B.V and Sharman, titled: Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of the Business and certain Assets of Kazaa B.V.
Buried within the most standard legal contract that makes you want to stab your eyeballs out, are the following nuggets of information.
When Kazaa's original Dutch owners got the jitters from pending US litigation by the music industry, the company was sold to Sharman for 600,000 Euros (about $1 million) to be paid in three installments. The purchase price included all company assets for the provision of p2p enabled software (which includes advertisement space for display advertising) to let users search and download files from other users.
Plus, all business and registered intellectual property rights, confidential information (defined as processes, methods, formulae, financial data, customer and supplier lists, marketing information, test results and reports, project reports, testing procedures, development manuals, training manuals, market forecasts, sales targets and stats, price sensitive information, research reports, business development reports), and all Internet domain names.
Bored yet? The sale took place in the Amsterdam offices of Van Doome at De Lairessestraat, and following the sale, Kazaa BV would have to change its name. Sharman was indemnified against all debts and liabilities and blah blah blah standard contract stuff. All employees were sacked after the sale (nice). Kazaa B.V ensured there was no Trade Union agreements or disputes in place at the time of sale. If there was, the leftie bastards would understand anyway, because every revolution starts a bit nasty. Of course, today Sharman enjoys the full support of a devoted staff that would never be treated so shoddily by their benevolent bosses if there were cause to up and move from a jurisdiction under legal duress. It's a revolution, it's Us against Them, it's Mabo, it's the vibe of the thing.
The Sales Agreement further confirms that when all employees were sacked, there was no way anyone could come back and haunt them to "assert any moral right in respect of any Business Intellectual Property Right." And if they did, then Zenstrom and Friis would be stung for it, not Sharman. So I'm guessing all employees were made to sign a contract as thick and dense as this one to make sure they kept quiet.
The original owners, Niklas "Skype" Zennstrom and Janus Friis were forbidden from competing with Sharman in any way for 3 years.
The deal was to be kept secret and not announced without the written consent of Sharman. The Sales Agreement was construed in accordance with the laws of England and subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
There were two clauses that seemed a bit odd. Under Schedule 3 of Vendor Warranties is the subheading Litigation. Clause 5.1 says:
Save as disclosed in the Litigation Letter, the Vendor (Kazaa B.V) is not a plaintiff or defendant in or otherwise a party to any litigation relating to the Business, which are in progress or threatened in writing or pending against the Vendor. So far as the Vendor is aware, no governmental or official investigation or inquiry concerning the Vendor is in progress or pending.
Th
I can't see that this is going to blow major holes in Kazaa's legal defense, although I do think they'll lose anyway.
I don't think Kazaa's argument was ever that they "didn't know" about all the illegal P2P traffic they were generating. Surely their argument is the old "Common Carrier" one, where they aren't responsible for anything Kazaa transports and responsibility is shifted to the software user? Maybe I've misunderstood, feel free to correct me.
Now, this is clearly embarrassing for the company, and the CTO especially, but I can't see that it's of much legal importance. Everyone knows about Kazaa and spyware by now, don't they/
apterous.org
People would prefer programs without adware? What a stunning concept. At what point did "manifesto" replace "common sense"?
But there sure are boatful of "bloat"-ware galores!!!
Which is created by the same folks that started KaaZaa.
If skype installer doesnt container spyware today, it will have some tomorrow, take my word for it.
I'd stay away from anything created by this company or associated with them.
That maybe this chap wasn't -entirely- on side with the business strategy of the company.
To me this sounds like a techy complaining that the business is subverting the idea. In many cases this is because the techy doesn't understand the business model, but here it sounds more as if the business didn't understand the market.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
When your own employees hate installing the very software of their employeer you know its a recipe for disaster. With those kinds of feelings flowing around the office its suprising the documents werent 'leaked' earlier. For some odd reason I don't see anybody coming to Kazaa's defense in court now like Napster saw when they were up on the chopping block.
Which is not to excuse his spyware-infested piece of crap. But where ever business memo must be written in such a way that you csn't tell the truth because it might be used against you in a court of law, your have a big problem with your tort system.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I'm still amazed that the people in charge of companies like Sharman, etc. think that chocking their software full of crap programs that infect and make peoples' pcs run poorly (to say the least) is the correct way to go. I guess it just shows that in the end, a proper p2p program needs to be open sourced. It seems the only way we'll get something people will want (want is emphasized) to use. It takes real people to make software to be used by real people I guess.
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
"We HATE to install our own software" - HA HA HA HA
i think that is technically called cumeuppence!!
"stick that up your arse Tony Greg" - The 12th Man.
Worst. Phrase. Ever.
Its one of those phrases that sounds really clever until you realize it has no meaning.
Nobody can define "intellectual property", yet we have lawyers who claim to be well versed in it.
People still use Kazaa? Just switch to SoulSeek, much better.
There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.
Marathon Cigarette CEO: "The guy has collected every single item in our gift catalog; you have to smoke 90,000 packs. Let's face it, the guy should be dead by now!"
Lawyer: "I'm not putting you on the stand."
J
Bear in mind that these aren't the Halloween Documents. The article, for those who refuse to RTFA, is basically a summary of the documents- not the documents themselves. They don't say "we're selling a product which we know is poisoning people's computers", that's sort of implied across the board. But they still don't come right out and say it.
One nice thing about any devious plots. People always have to write them down to either keep their lies straight, or to justify it somehow to themselves.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I occasionally have to touch some dodgy Windows stuff. I have a VMWare win2k virtual machine that I clone - one copy with my accounting stuff (yes, stuck on Windows), one copy with Cisco cert stuff, and perhaps another if there is something untrustworthy I need to inspect. Since its Windows its *all* untrustworthy
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Also
Yeah right, like that's going to happen.Me lost me cookie at the disco.
I don't know the answer, but I guess I'm more qualified to answer than many because I've been coding one on and off for the past three years. I guess the answer is it's hard work. You're also not "following head lights", as even the eDonkey clones do. And the programming is not easy - with C language it's socket programming, which means all kinds of strange things can come over the network which have to be defensively coded against, and since you're using multiple sockets that means threading. And it takes a lot of code to just get a decent app, never mind cool bells and whistles. One reason mine is GPL is, aside from liking the GPL, this is my first big software project so I don't feel I'm at a level where I can sell my code yet. I've also borrowed GPL code from a program called gnut which helped. I would borrow from one called GTK-Gnutella but it's so big and complex it's hard to directly borrow from.
Of course there are exceptions - Gnutella (although AOL/TW killed the eponymous one, leaving only the protocol clones), and Bittorrent. With the Gnutella protocol, Limewire and Bearshare are commercial companies, but they agree on an open protocol, which they share with some free clients (like mine).
There are so many innovations possible - Bittorrent is one of the recent ones - it built on what Edonkey did, allowing hundreds of megs of files to be transferred, except with Bittorrent, it added speed to the picture. So because Bittorrent exists, people now have a better chance of getting ISOs of Linux distros, Indymedia videos or whatnot. It's such a cool area I wonder why the propietary folks so often beat the free ones in terms of innovation. I guess it's a wash now with who innovates more. And also, with sockets, trheading and protocols that obsolete older versions as time goes on (ay de mi!), it takes so long to get a decent app together that innovation seems a long way off.
I suppose another reason is the RIAA/MPAA is suing p2p developers left and right - that might explain why people are hanging back somewhat. It's unfortunate this fear is stifling p2p innovation. In many ways it seems ridiculous to me - on BBSs in the 1980s you had a file section and a message board system. Sometimes you didn't even have a message board - just a file section. People have been trading and sharing files on computers for decades, all of a sudden such communal practices are tainted, with accusations flying on Slashdot on how people use p2p to break some new laws that the big corporations passed recently in Washington DC that protected their soi disant intellectual property. It's ridiculous - there were normal BBSs and warez BBSs back then, just as there is an equivalent nowadays on the Internet. It would be insane for US-legal (for now) things such as sharing ISOs or Indymedia videos is crushed by the evil capitalist bourgeois corporations.
A lot of tech companies use it to describe th practice of using their own products in house. That's also where to discover many of the problems that infuriate customers.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
<grumpiness size="extreme" style="curmudgeonly">
If Kazaa goes down, there could well be a flood of low-quality Britney_Spears_naked111.mpg traders and leeches coming onto the good p2p systems. I don't think I want that.
It'll be like AOL day all over again.
Support Kazaa -- or America's highschoolers will be trading on your network!
</grumpiness>
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Too.....much......to.....read......
short attention span
Consider worthwhile this exploitation, OF AMERICA) is the 'doing something' polite to bring prospects are Obvious that there a`nd its long term
just incase of the slashdot effect:
Thanks, but mirrordot has it. "The old ways are burning in the fires of industry," you might say.
WHAT? Are you blind?
I said "blind and deaf." And yet, you must have read it as "blind or deaf."
They are in essence, still deaf, and in need of assistance with telephone communication efforts.
I truly hope you don't work in the programming field for a mission critical systems, particularly of critical logic decision making (gosh, we lost so many space missions, ships, airplane, and cars to this kind of simple mistakes).
(sigh) Dang Slashdot newbies.
If you install Kazaa while running MS Antispyware, do you still get the adware installed?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I am feeling a bit optimistic today, but I would rather that everyone write everything down. That way, the scumbags will be obvious and you can get a more honest view of things. It is like saying "don't be evil" as opposed to "don't leave a paper trail proving you are evil"
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Haven't secret government documents appeared on Kazaa? ;)
I prefer a void in conversation to a vacuous one.
Kazaa has been designed from the beginning with the less cerebral folks in mind. I've always used gnutella and lately added FT, torrent, and freenet.
1) People install Kazaa because they want to pirate music, pictures, video and software from the Internet
2) Kazaa puts spyware crap in their product
3) Users think this is unfair
4) Kazaa is in court because of what they did
Am I crazy? Is there someone out there forcing people to install Kazaa? How many people were installing it for legit legal use?
You don't want spyware crap? Don't install shady programs.
This is like sueing a drug addict because he let you share his needle and you contracted HIV. I really don't get what all the fuss is about.
Didn't they try transfering their ownership to some pseudo-sovereign island that is at maybe twelve feet above high tide? Or am I getting them mixed up with another of those flash-in-the-pan P2P companies?
you mean there's someone out there still using Kazaa?
25 YRS working on mission critical systems myself...
Either I'm good or I'm lucky.
If I'm lucky, I offer my apology on the ambiguous specification of "blind and deaf."
If I'm good, then most everyone must understands my specs.
I hope its both.
Thanks...
But where ever business memo must be written in such a way that you csn't tell the truth because it might be used against you in a court of law, your have a big problem with your tort system.
Replace tort system with business practices. Now your statement makes more sense.
IOW, the problem is not in the tort system: if the truth is bad enough to get one in trouble then that is the real issue.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Some people, simply put, don't give a rat's ass about "correct" or about damage done. They only care about making money. Period.
If it weren't explicitly illegal, they'd even poison a town's water supply just for some money. Not an exaggeration: companies dumped toxic stuff into rivers right until the law forced them to stop. Or into the air. And even then, every time someone told them to use filters, there was endless moaning and bitching and lobbying about it.
Spam, tele-marketting, link-spam, spyware, etc, are just a symptom of the same thing: if it makes money and it's not illegal, hell yeah. Let's pollute and destroy another resource.
There was an interview with a link-spammer on The Register this week. Dunno, I found it surrealistic how the guy basically had _zero_ morals. Not even an "eh, it's wrong, but I need the money" kinda attitude. Nope. The general tone all over was along the lines of "who the damn has time to care about collateral damage? It makes money and it's not illegal. Period. If you have a problem with it, tough shit. Sucks to be you."
Basically it's the same with spyware. These people don't care, that's all. As long as it makes them a buck and isn't explicitly illegal, they'll clog your computer without thinking twice. If it was possible and made them a buck, they'd even make that computer explode without thinking twice.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You've gone over every line of the source code you use? All of it? The entire kernel, all the drivers, all the utilities, all the apps and so on? You've checked carefully, to ensure that there's no backdoors spread across a number of functions (you can have some thigns that are innocent and harmless on their own, that work together to do something bad)?
Are you also sure about your compiler, have you checked it? Not the source I mean, but do you know that the binary is a faithful reproduction of the source? The problem with a compiler, is that you compile it with an old version of itself. What if it has a backdoor that exists only in binary form, never in the source, but propagates on compile (see http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/)?
There's nothing about OSS that inherantly protects you. This is espically true since I'm guessing indeed you have NOT done the audit I described. Few people have the programming skills necessary to do so in a useful way and even fewer have the mountain of free time it takes. Rather, you are taking it on faith that others have audited the software you use, done a good job when doing so, and have spoken the truth and been heard if a problem was found.
A more realistic way to check to see if the software is all above board, and one that works equally well on closde source software, is to check the install. By that I mean log everything that is added, modified, or deleted. Then, when running the software, look for anomalous behaviour, like loading modules it shouldn't, trying to establish network connections, spawning other processes, etc. If you do that correctly, it's not hard to tell if something is acting evil or comes with stuff that does. It's also something that you could realisticly spend the time to do for all the programs you use.
Even then, I doubt you'd bother unless you are super paranoid. I'm sure you generally trust that others have looked in to it, and you'd have heard about it if there were problems. I personally only check the install and operation of a program that I find suspicious. Retail software, OSS, and 99% of downloads I don't bother since experience shows that there's nothing to worry about. I take on faith that there's nothing bad in there, and if there is one of my cleaner tools will catch it soon enough.
But my point here isn't to attack OSS, if that's what you are thinking, just to point out that this warm, fuzzy feeling that many people get from the openess is a false sense of security. They think because the code is open, and able to be checked, it means that there's nothing bad in there. Well, that's probably true, but only in the same way it's probably true that if you buy retail software it's also free of malware. Neither is a gaurentee of anything, and since 99.999% (or more) of people aren't actually using the openness to do their own audit, it's a false sense of security.
Basically, when you get down to it, you can never be sure there isn't something lurking there, unknown to the general population. The only way you could feel confident is if you wrote your own assembler from machine code, your own basic OS and compiler from that, audited every line of code in the OS, compiler and apps you were going to run, and then proceeded to build them 100% from source using your own tools. Even then, you still might miss something. Remember: We find holes in software all the time, we call them bugs or exploits, meaning they weren't intended by the developers. This happens even to OSS, even to major peices of OSS that have been looked at thousands of times over. Sometimes, you just miss things.
And none of these exploits were trying to be sneaky or hide on purpose.
I'm not trying to say grab the AFDB and trust no one, that's pretty stupid clearly. I'm just pointing out that you should put the same amount of stock in OSS you haven't audited as in CSS you can't. Consider the source, and if it's suspicious, do a checked install, and have programs setup to watch how it runs. With 30 minutes of work you can generally tell if it's safe or not.
To what lengths are you willing to go to preserve "Intellectual Property rights"? Only more and more draconian laws and technological measures (DRM, NGSCB) are able to hold back the tide of information freedom. You're talking about restricting information here, and the obvious benefit free flow of information can bring society.
It is obvious by looking at the mediocre content available today, it is mostly generated, not for the love of art, but for money and dreams of riches. Why should we encourage that??
Um, wherever putting details about your business model down on paper would result in serious legal liability, you have a big problem with your business model. Yes? The problem with Enron wasn't that they might get caught, it was that they used fundamentally dishonest accounting practices -- whether they wrote those practices down or not.
I have no problem with talking about tort reform, but the idea that trial lawyers are "running" anyone's economy is ludicrous. It's ludicrous on the same level that "trial lawyers are jacking up our medical expenses" is a ludicrous overstatement of the effect of malpractice suits.
Behind your post lies the assumption that basically anything goes for businesses, as long as they don't get held accountable for their unsavory actions. I'll take a balanced economy, thanks. Regulation of industry for the public interest, checks and balances in the legal system... It's all radical communism by you, I'm sure, but I'll choose it all the same.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
What the heck are you talking about? BitTorrent dying?!
That's just bullshit. Check your facts before you spew out rumors you've heard from someone who heard it from some who...
"Intellectual property"
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual property"---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about "copyright," or about "patents," or about "trademarks."
The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.
To avoid the bias and confusion of this term, it is best to make a firm decision not to speak or even think in terms of "intellectual property".
The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make WIPO embarassed.
From: Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding
So-called "IP-Rights" are also rebutted in the article Tragedy of the Commons. From Wikipedia:
In Hardin's article, the Commons is a shared plot of grassland used by all livestock farmers in a village. Each farmer keeps adding more livestock to graze on the Commons, because it costs him nothing to do so. In a few years, the soil is depleted by overgrazing, the Commons becomes unusable, and the village perishes.
The cause of any tragedy of the commons is that when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire cost of their actions. If each seeks to maximize individual utility, he ignores the costs borne by others. This is an example of an externality. The best (non-cooperative) short-term strategy for an individual is to try to exploit more than his or her share of public resources. Assuming a majority of individuals follow this strategy, the theory goes, the public resource gets overexploited.
The tragedy of the commons is a source of intense controversy, precisely because it is unclear whether individuals will or will not follow the overexploitation strategy in any given situation.
A short example: Why should Disney have eternal monopoly on Mickey Mouse, when Disney benefit extremely much from folklore-tales like: Snow-white and the 7 dwarves, Alice in Wonderland, Pochahontas, etc?
In this case, Disney benefit from the Commons, without contributing back. This is so-called "IP-rights" in a nutshell: They take away from the Public Domain, without contributing back.
"Evaluation versions" are the software equivalent of "trying the shoes on"
Ah, but you're leaving out that the current shoes will attach suckers to your feet and start stealing your precious fluids. Often, the suckers remain even long after you remove the shoes.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
What's the difference between a tainted or trojen package or .exe installer?
I'd argue it is equally easy to compromise a system if the user does not exercise due dilligence, where due dilligence is something more than clicking Yes or Ok to dismiss a dialog box.
Secondly, you do realise Windows has accounts, permissions and privleges, yes? Certainly, Win98 had horrible flaws with respect to such, but, honestly, it's 2005, and those sorts of justifications to knock the modern, fully patched XP systems are bloody trifling.
NB: I'm not a Microsoft fan - I've used *nix at work and Win32 at home since the early 90's enough to know all the tripe and annoyances of both, but it's so old hat to see posts vadim_t's moderated Informative, when they are any thing but.
Your eMule vs. BT comment is pure nonsense.
The reason BT is "faster" than eMule is that BT only concentrates on one file at a time. So everyone's on that file. With eMule, people are sharing and downloading loads of files at a time.
In reality, BT doesn't make your pipe fatter. It just downloads one file instead of several.
Why the hell is the parent +5 informative? It's completely inaccurate (in the statement that Kazaa and Skype are owned by the same company. If you are wise enough to know that Kazaa was coded by the same people as Skype, you should know enough to realize that the guys who coded Kazaa did not put spyware in -- someone else did.
Skype is not owned by Sharman Networks. Skype was coded by the same people who designed Kazaa, say it with me now, befooooooore it was sold to Sharman, and Shaaaarman added the spy/mal/adware.
I've used Skype for 6 months, and there is nothing bad in it. If you are too paranoid to use it, well, it's your loss. I just would rather not have a company that is actually honest and providing an excellent product be associated with the current Kazaa.
I trust Skype enough to have given their company around 500 USD over the course of this time in using their service, and using my credit card at that!
Enough with the Skype idiocy!
there is no such thing as an internal (or secret) document.
think of that before you write ANYTHING.
...apparently the rumored 'slashdot effect' has nothing to do with it after all:
...
The Sale of Kazaa
Team Sharman came to court today with a strategic shift in direction: the revolution would now be a secret.
Their legal team presented a draft set of undertakings designed to suppress non-confidential documents from the media. It could have been a great plan if the Judge didn't think it was so crap, and with no supporting evidence for the basis of claim to confidentiality, Judge Wilcox swept away the majority of the claims for confidentiality by Altnet and Sharman.
You'd really think, wouldn't you, that if your employees hate your product your customers might too?
Oh, right. They're just stupid kids intent on killing off the music industry throught their own needs for immediate gratification.
This CEO is not someone I'd ever hire to run my company.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I mean, they wouldn't be very good spies if they just told you where they were.
Covert!
Who today uses Kazaa for file transfers, as opposed to Shareaza? Kazaa is infested with fake files (as I've been told... *whistles innocently*), viruses, leechers who don't share a thing, etc etc.
Shareaza, on the other hand...
I am suprised there isint an option or key that the employees could use to install the app without putting the malware on their machine. Also, why would the employees need to install this software? Surely not for testing...?
The entire idea of the company's "privacy" being raked over the coals is such classic poetic justice! I hope they feel as violated as the user's they exploited.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
It's like reading Nazi-authored documents taken from the Nurnberg trial. Anybody else thought this way? No, really.
Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
going to Boulder, Colorado and remedy that?
This comment inspired by whois.com .
Option 1
kazaa lite is like the holy grail of windows p2p clients. If you search near and far then you just might be able to get your hands on this piece of p2p goodness.
Option 2
grab giFT! This is the most amazing p2p client I've come across because you can install modules that allow it to connect to all the p2p networks! gnutella, fast track and others at the click of the mouse!
Is your company using Linux? You could be at legal risk to a SCO lawsuit. Collect personal data on your customers? You could be at legal risk if that data gets hacked. Run a bungee jumping business? Legal risk. It doesn't say "he was aware they were performing illegal activities", it says he was aware of a risk. That is simply awareness that a) there was a real chance a lawsuit would be filed against them, and b) there was a non-trivial chance that, if sued, they would lose. Risk awareness does not imply guilt.
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
People install a crappy software to download music and movies illegal, now the big criminal is on court becuase he sells poor drugs with bad quality to green-heads of his town. Totally crazy! Let's move on people............
I know how to find a few things, I'm sure some of you know how to find others. Between all of us we warn each other. Thus why we all know Kazaa is bundled with Adware.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
When people did the automatic update, the internet was up in arms that they didn't have the option to uncheck "Install spyware please", which they only get in the clean first install. So unchecking the default install is available, unchecking the default update +spywareinstall is not.
Just a word of warning to those of you interested in this software.
For context, click Parent.
If it weren't for Kazaa, there would be no Kazaa Lite, one of the most convenient filesharing apps around.
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
Bullshit.
The updater just runs the new installation exe.
You see the same screens as if you were installing for the first time, including the accept/refuse page.
Reverse it yourself and see.
... don't squeeze the Sharman.
Who here actually uses Kazaa? No not 'lite or another cracked client but the actual original Kazaa client? I think I tried it once about 3-4 years ago, fact is, only idiots are using Kazaa (i was young and foolish), lesser idiots use Kazaa Lite Resurrection, and really you should be using something else as a primary P2P client or network.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
As long as enough white-hats have scanned the code, it doesn't matter how many black-hats look at it. The whole point in Open Source is that it is inherently secure.
The uber-paranoid (and Gentoo users) can read the code of something to check it before compiling their own binaries, the less paranoid can trust their distribution packagers to have done so, or trust the scanning eyes or threat of scanning eyes from an unknown number of "net randoms" to have had the same effect.
Kazaa assure us that their stuff is ridgy-didge, secure and clean but the only way we can know for sure is by using a disassembler (illegal in some places) and a lot of patience.
One method is much easier than the other, and one method has proven to be considerably more effective in practice than the other.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Yet another example of how everyone needs complete access to a sound machine that produces the wah-wah sound on-command from anywhere.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Fantastic program as far as I'm concerned, have been using it for ages... first when it was just free but closed source, and now when it's become Open Source.
Have a try... it support 4 P2P networks: EDonkey2000, Gnutella, Gnutella2 and BitTorrent.
It can be grabbed at www.shareaza.com