Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Michael Weiss Interview

Posted by samzenpus on from the listen-up dept.

chrish writes "Zeropaid has an interview with Michael Weiss, CEO of StreamCast Networks, maker of Morpheus. Michael has been involved in MGM v Grokster since the beginning, and provides a clear, thorough timeline of events since then. He also details interesting insights of his own into the future of the p2p space, including some new ad models."

69 comments

  1. nothing is more interesting than... by sum.zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    new ad models!!!

    i mean, who doesn't get excited when they hear about new ways to be bombarded with corporate propaganda!

    sum.zero

    1. Re:nothing is more interesting than... by gilkyboy · · Score: 1, Funny

      You mean this model?

    2. Re:nothing is more interesting than... by lheal · · Score: 5, Funny

      new ad models, especially if they dress appropriately.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    3. Re:nothing is more interesting than... by trawg · · Score: 1
      i mean, who doesn't get excited when they hear about new ways to be bombarded with corporate propaganda!


      You see corpoprate propaganda, I see a way of getting a free service.
    4. Re:nothing is more interesting than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if by appropriately you mean naked

    5. Re:nothing is more interesting than... by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      "...and it was like, bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep..."

  2. whoo-ee! by sulli · · Score: 4, Funny

    more spyware! my favorite!

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:whoo-ee! by eobanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Weiss and his gang really are jerks, the way I see it. Morpheus uses a horribly outdated implentation of the Gnutella protocol, which wastes bandwidth and returns fewer results for searches. The whole idea behind programs like Morpheus are getting things for free. Do they really think they're doing everyone a favour by cramming ads and a shitty version of Gnutella on people's desktops?

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    2. Re:whoo-ee! by fcrick · · Score: 2, Informative

      You obviously haven't tried Morpheus recently. Morpheus' Gnutella implementation is up to date, but Morpheus hardly relies on Gnutella at the moment. Right now, most search results come from NEOnet, their in-house DHT (Distributed Hash Table), which provides fast, complete searches of all Morpheus clients.

      Morpheus has one bundle, SolidPeer, which can be completely removed after install in Add/Remove Programs.

      Note: I work for an affiliate of Streamcast.

      --
      Your signatures belong to me.
    3. Re:whoo-ee! by sulli · · Score: 1
      I work for an affiliate of Streamcast.

      A ... spyware ... affiliate perhaps?

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    4. Re:whoo-ee! by fcrick · · Score: 1

      Nope. I work on Morpheus.

      --
      Your signatures belong to me.
  3. Following the case by Polycom+Sucks · · Score: 5, Informative
    " The Supreme Court agreed and heard the case on March 29, 2005. We expect to hear their decision in late June 2005."
    For any of you who are following the case, it looks like we may hear the landmark decision in just over two months. A decision for Grokster is what most of us are hoping for. It would be the modern day equivalant of the Betamax case of the late 70s.
    1. Re:Following the case by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Betamax case hit the Supreme Court in 84. But it is possible that the case began in the 70's -- I'd have to check.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:Following the case by Polycom+Sucks · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are correct. I was thinking only of the decision in the U.S. District Court.

      The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony in October 1979. Next, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the decision in October 1981. Finally, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision on January 17, 1984.

      (Source)

  4. Re:Gnucleus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen to that. I enjoyed Morpheus until they basically started distributing an adware-laden Gnutella client, which (a) wasn't better than the others, and (b) was just thrown together at the last minute

  5. What an ass! by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm sympathetic, in the sense that I think the law should be targeting violators, not technologies. (If the RIAA and the MPAA want to hammer the sharers, good luck to them.) And the part about David Kendall and Kenneth Starr teaming up to sue him is pretty funny.

    Nonetheless, I can't believe this guy goes around bragging about his "innovation" and wailing about how the US is going to suffer if the economic clout of the warez industry moves overseas. (That affects what, our Gr055 N4710n41 Pr0duc7?) C'mon, the guy's business model is illegally distributing other people's products! At least the Napster and BitTorrent guys had genuinely innovative software, but he can't even say that!

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    1. Re:What an ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is a major scumbag, and it sucks that the philosophically most important part of MGM vs Groklaw ("guns don't kill people, people kill people" -> "p2p software doesn't infringe copyrights, people infringe copyrights") has to be tangled up with this company that OBVIOUSLY intentionally tries to make money by facilitating copyright infringement by the masses.

      People should be free to create and own technology that can infringe copyright. And copyright holders should be free to sue them for infringement. At least, until they change copyright law for the better in the U.S. But don't outlaw the tools!

  6. New Revenue Model to P2P by EverDense · · Score: 1

    How about paying people to receive adverts while they're downloading illegal content?
    That way, they can have their cake and eat it too.

    Until the companies involved get sued into the floor. ;-)

    --
    http://jesus.everdense.com/
  7. poetry time! by aendeuryu · · Score: 0

    There once was a man, Michael Weiss,
    Who helped make Morpheus! Ain't that nice?
    And to the dismay,
    of the **AA,
    He's saying p2p ain't no vice.

    Whoops. Maybe I got the rhyme wrong.

    There was a man called Michael Weiss,
    Whose crusade we hope he'll never cease.
    Forget the industry!
    All music should be free!
    And screw you, internet police!

    1. Re:poetry time! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Dude that's aweful. RIAA deserve a far more insulting poem...

    2. Re:poetry time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      With apologies to Gary Larson:

      The distant rhythms call to me.
      Their echoing waves seduce my heart.
      Oh, how I want to listen to their lush symphonies.
      Oh, how I want to revel in their wonderful songs.
      Alas, I cannot.
      Damn the RIAA!
      Damn the RIAA!

  8. Ad models are the problem. by N5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's fairly simple:

    The people who would *arguably* use P2P for legal purposes only are probably geeks who don't want their boxen corrupted with garbage. [he claims no more spy/adware, but other "bundles" or as I collectivly call it all "assware"]

    The people who would *arguably* use P2P for illegal puropses are consumers who simply want stuff for free. This is the type of person these "companies" are trying to make cash from, all while giving P2P a bad name.

    Are the two mutually exclusive? not necessarily, but this is why Linux distros are distributed via BT and generally not [insert propriatary P2P network who's software includes tons of ad/spyware or other unwanted apps.]

    While it's nice of him to provide some info for us all, he is exactly the type of person we should be against: those demonizing P2P technology for personal gain, endangering it's very existance in the process.

    --
    John 3:16 - The easiest way to a BETTER YOU.
    1. Re:Ad models are the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It doesn't really matter what the network is used for. This will set a precedent and if a court can shut down one p2p network it can shut down any. While we may see them differently, the courts will just see it all as illegal p2p.

    2. Re:Ad models are the problem. by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the **AA wins in the Supreme Court, it will deter progress in the P2P field, regardless of its purpose, as developers would fear making something that could be used for illegal purposes.

      For now, he's on our side. No doubt, he's fighting because of greed. But if he loses, expect larger losses in the future, at the expense of technology.

    3. Re:Ad models are the problem. by mtpruitt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, this is a nice observation about the usage patterns of different clients and technologies.

      No, this doesn't really matter for legal standards.

      The plaintiffs in this suit are looking for secondary liability for copyright infringement under either of two theories: either the software companies helped someone else infringe (contributory) or they were responsible for the actions of the direct infringers (vicarious). The fact that the software companies received money from advertisements / adware / spyware / whatever is only relevant for the latter theory, vicarious infringement. For contributory infringement, it plays no direct role, although it can be consider among other things.

      What this means is that software producers that don't gain financially from their product (i.e., FOSS) still could be liable if Grokster et al lose their case. The big fear is that any decision by the Court could be interpretted in a vague manner to chill other seemingly appropriate activities.

      (There is also some talk about using an inducement standard, but that hasn't been shown yet. That would address the issue of benefit from ads directly a little bit more, but still could snare FOSS.)

      Ads don't kill technology -- (overactive) copyright does.

    4. Re:Ad models are the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the **AA wins in the Supreme Court, it will deter progress in the P2P field

      should read

      If the **AA wins in the Supreme Court, it will deter progress in the P2P field in the United States

      there are 191 other countries in the world where their laws do not apply, this is obviously a difficult concept to understand by USA lawmakers (and it seems its IT people too)

    5. Re:Ad models are the problem. by kfg · · Score: 1

      Ads don't kill technology -- (overactive) copyright does.

      And how do you tell if copyright is overactive? If it is killing technology. Copyright is intended to protect artistic and literary works, not scientific or technological works. The specific code of a program has been deemed to be a "literary" work, but the strictly scientific or tecnological aspects of that code are not.

      This is why reverse engineering, quite legitimately, is legal. No one can claim ownership of "2+2=4" simply because they have included that equation in an otherwise legitimately copy protected document, just as words in a name cannot be protected by copyright unless they are of your own invention ("Bob's Corner Market" vs. "Exxon." Legitimate copyright ownership of a word, however, does not obviate fair use of that word, as in "Exxon sucks.").

      That's why the software companies want patent protection for algorithms.

      How do you tell of patents are overactive? If they limit what you are allowed to write.

      The idea that entire technologies can be shut down and placed under taboo because they might be used to violate copyright is abhorent and until now the courts have viewed it that way. Please note that the copyright laws that allow you to use a Xerox machine under fair use terms were written after the appearance of said machine, because it became obvious that such laws were needed, because it was obvious the machine itself could not be banned outright on the basis of its potential for violating copyright.

      New guidelines were written, and while not everyone is happy about them at least the world is allowed to continue turning instead of being ground to halt under the aegis of "intellectual property."

      And if you think this is a fight over copyright infringement, per se, you aren't paying attention.

      While protection from copying is certainly the foundation of the media industry that allows it to operate the house of the media industry, that is its actual business model, is based on the control of the distribution channels.

      This means that if you want your own works to get distributed on an equal footing you must contract with them, on their terms, to achieve that distribution.

      P2P, in one swell foop, leaves the foundation of copyright law intact (I still own legitimate protection for my own works. This is a very, very important point), but razes the house of the industry controled distribution cartel right to the ground.

      The idea that the industry fight against internet trading of protected works is about keeping you from downloading Metallica songs is a public front, a dodge, a secondary issue put forward as the primary issue to distract you from seeing the primary issue.

      Which is that the industry wants to make sure that if Metallica wishes to distribute their songs widely they must assign their rights to copy and distribute them to some other party.

      And that other party gets the money, n'est pa?

      If Metallica can record a song and instantly gain world wide distribution at little to no cost by the simple expediant of tossing it out onto a P2P network the entire music industry, as she is write, crumbles to the ground.

      They control the art by controling the artist by means of controling the disemination of the art.

      This is what it's all about.

      Now, yes, that still leaves the question of what sort of business model might work with P2P distribution, but. . .

      Copyright law isn't about protecting business models, it's about protecting copying. Get it? Copy right?

      This is why the SCO claim that OSS violated the Constitution was so bizarre. Whether you sell stuff or give stuff away, or trade it for hamsters, or whatever, has nothing at all to do with the provisions of copy protection.

      So, the fight here is not about your supposed "right" to downlo

    6. Re:Ad models are the problem. by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the **AA is gaining ground around the world. China, Europe and other countries are willing to protect the rights of these companies over their citizens for further foreign investment.

      There have been BitTorrent-related arrests in Hong Kong, and movie-piracy related arrests in Sweden, both of which are amongst the freest countries in the world.

  9. Ads? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "the future of the p2p space, including some new ad models"

    Talk of ad models implies something other than p2p. It's person to person, and people will choose the model without ads. Kazza Lite, anyone?

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  10. Re:Gnucleus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought gnutella was that chocolaty spread thingie

  11. Making asses of US by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The guy's bizmodel is giving people a tool to exchange whatever we want, without some privileged mediator. That is the future of network communication, spearheaded right here in the USA. If we are forced to stop doing it, others with that freedom will become the leaders. That will certainly affect our GDP. And guys like this, who can rightfully claim to have led a huge surge in popularity of the apps, will find lots of welcoming places to work where people are responsible for their actions, not just for allowing other people to act.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Making asses of US by Otter · · Score: 1
      The guy's bizmodel is giving people a tool to exchange whatever we want, without some privileged mediator.

      No, his business model is that people will pay him a little money or view some ads in order to save money over legally obtaining music or movies. Any legal benefits that accrue from it are purely accidental, as is the collateral damage caused by indiscriminately shutting P2P down.

      Like I said, I oppose restricting technology and would much rather see the RIAA go after college students, teenagers, grannies and the rest of the violators. But that doesn't make Michael Weiss any less of a scumbag parasite, let alone an "innovator".

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    2. Re:Making asses of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bizmodel"? WTF?!?

    3. Re:Making asses of US by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      In NYC, we don't have time to say the redundant "iness" syllables over and again.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Making asses of US by Mattcelt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      in order to save money over legally obtaining music or movies.

      Show me where I can get what I want, where I want, legally. Seriously.

      iTunes? Nope, have to break the law there just to get music to play on my .mp3 player. (And I don't want a damn iPod, free or otherwise, thank you very much.)

      CDs? Nope, can't get a lot of the live shows I can download (legitimately even, in some cases!!) on CD.

      DVDs? Oh wait, the studios don't offer my favorite TV show on DVD.

      If the content owner representatives would get their heads out of their collective assess and stop trying to CONTROL EVERYTHING, we wouldn't have anywhere near the copyright infringement "problem" we have right now. Compulsory licensing has worked for a century now, and the labels are STILL trying to get around it with every new technology that comes out. It's absurd - and the bitter irony is that the artists, who the RIAA and MPAA complain are being so unfairly trampled by 'piracy', are being short-changed. If they were just paid from a compulsory license pool (just like in radio), several dozen proposals of which have been floated in recent years, then this whole argument just goes away. Everybody wins, there is no more piracy, and we get on with our lives.

      So before you go blaming those of us who are simply satisfying ourselves IN WAYS WE CANNOT OTHERWISE because the *AAs can't get past their control freak tendencies, look at the whole picture - which I've just outlined for you.

      It's not about saving a few measly dollars, let me assure you.

    5. Re:Making asses of US by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      If they were just paid from a compulsory license pool (just like in radio), several dozen proposals of which have been floated in recent years, then this whole argument just goes away. Everybody wins, there is no more piracy, and we get on with our lives.

      How does that work? The artists get paid whether anyone buys their work or not? If that's the case, then what guarantee is there that the people paying the artists ever make the money back, let alone a profit? Or, are you arguing that artists should be state-sponsored, ie that *everyone* should pay for the work (through taxation) whether they want it or not?

      I must be missing the point, but I don't see how any scheme will guarantee that "there is no more piracy".

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    6. Re:Making asses of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't get it legally then tough. That never gives you the right to obtain it illegally.

    7. Re:Making asses of US by mixonic · · Score: 1
      in order to save money over legally obtaining music or movies.


      Show me where I can get what I want, where I want, legally. Seriously.


      Yeah! Stick it to the man! So....there is this bank I really want to get into the vault of.....but they wont "legally" let me do that either. What the hell is the country coming to.

      If you are going to steal music, just steal it. Bonnie and Clyde didn't think they were doing doing what was Right and Just and Legal, they were doing what they wanted to do. Please dont try to justify yourself with "BUT I WAAAAANT IT!". We're (mostly) adults here.

      -mix
      ps- sorry this reads like a troll. I really want it to though, so I guess I'll just do it regardless of what you think.
  12. At least P2P is still kicking.... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Informative
    It has been a long time since Napster took a dirt nap at the hands of the establishment.

    There's more than the "we don't run a central server" defense keeping P2P alive, I think the courts actually see the legitimate side like home video recording, which "we all knew" was only for porn and pirating....

    I tried, and failed, to interest some Angel V/C groups in starting a P2P venture just around the time that Gnutella was surfacing (and the .com bubble hadn't quite burst yet.) They had a hard time getting their heads around the legit moneymaking side of it all and passed on the deal - and apparently making legitimate money is still the hard nut to crack. Showing ads to pirates isn't very lucrative, or particularly safe from lawsuits.

    --------------

    Wealth, Fame, Strength and Intelligence await in iCLOD city.

  13. Michael T Weiss -- The Pretender!!! by ryl00 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hey, I loved that TV show! Okay, so maybe each episode followed the same basic structure, but at least the Centre episodes were always interesting, and Miss Parker was always awesome!

  14. Edelweiss by Godman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Michael Weiss, Michael Weiss, every morning its Morpheus
    small and, damn!
    you've soaked up my ram!,
    Put spyware and stuff on my PC
    mess of trojans
    may you go blam!,
    boom and blow forever
    Michael Weiss, Michael Weiss, bless my computer forever

    Doesn't entirely fit, but hey. :P

    --
    I have this really funny quote that I like to put here. Unfortunately, there's this really annoying thing called a char
  15. RIAA trying to outspend opponents? by spagetti_code · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The RIAA / MPAA strategy is to outspend their opponents into submission. Their strategy worked with Napster, Scour and countless others
    Actually, Napster had pretty deep pockets. What took them down was the judge (patel) who decided that their product was solely focused on the illegal distribution of music, with central control.

    If, on the other hand, you have a decentralised, p2p network where the developer is not controlling content, and it has legitimate uses, then the product is likely to win the case.

    On this point, hes full of it.

    1. Re:RIAA trying to outspend opponents? by larytet · · Score: 1
      However, it is companies like ours that continue to fund P2P innovation

      what kind of innovation came from Morpheus ?

  16. Thanks slashdot, yet again. by Barto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An interview about advertising on a web site about the business of advertising with pop-ups that open in Firefox. Thanks slashdot!

  17. One thing cool about Morpheus by bonch · · Score: 1, Troll

    Morpheus supports Creative Commons, and properly tagged MP3s are recognized in search results in the client. Creative Commons will soon begin tagging all their mp3 files in the Copyright id3 tag. On Morpheus, you can even search 'cc:sampling' and 'cc:sharing', and you'll find and be able to download all properly tagged Creative Commons content.

  18. Ummmmm......... by saur2004 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Morpheus does not include spyware - or adware. However, to help pay our bills - both development and legal - the free version of Morpheus currently ships with one to two additional software bundles.

    Errrrrrr.... O_o

    Head hurts. Need more caffeine.

  19. The pretender by AgentGray · · Score: 5, Funny


    Little girl: Are you a CEO of Streamcast Networks?

    Michael Weiss: I am today.

    Oh, wait. That's Michael T. Weiss

    Dang. Ms. Parker

    --
    "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    1. Re:The pretender by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Cool, the "Nameless One".

      Yeah, that one from Planescape: Torment

      --
    2. Re:The pretender by Aardvark99 · · Score: 1

      By day, CEO...
      but once the sun goes down...
      MAGIC ON ICE!

  20. Re:The problem with comparisons to Betamax by femto · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The comparison is valid.

    It is irrelevant how many copies can be made or how perfect they are. Making one imperfect copy of a copyrighted work without permission makes you a law breaker (it is a binary thing) and is not being debated.

    The issue at stake is whether a subset of copyright holders are allowed to dictate the conditions under which works in which they have no interest may be copied.

    Put in those terms, the case sounds like a subset of copyright holders asking for their competition to be ruled illegal.

  21. Re:The problem with comparisons to Betamax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll qualify my previous comment by pointing out that you only break the law when you set outside 'fair use'. The qualification doesn't change the argument. You either break the law or you don't and passing on a cassette tape is as illegal as passing on a million digital copies.

  22. screw this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if p2p becomes illegal, then i vote that all other software that can be used to help trade copyrighted material be made illegal as well. Including but not limited to:
    ftp clients and servers, http clients and servers, irc clients and servers, email clients and servers, all compression software, and of course cp!

    1. Re:screw this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget: Windows (all verisons), linux (all distros), Mac OS9, Mac OS X, AIX, BeOS, etc...

  23. Re:The problem with comparisons to Betamax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comparison is not valid. Fair use allows you to make copies and share them with friends. P2P app allow for mass distribution of said copies.

    What is the definition of friend in this case. Sharing on P2P is not fair use by either the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.

    It is basically related to the ease of the "use" with beta you had to copy the movie which required you to actually play the movie back in real time.

    With P2P there is no real time involved. Your one copy is not restricted in it's replication potential. For instance on a fat pipe you could "share" you movie with 5000 "friends" a day. It would be impossible to copy one beta tape 5000 times in a day.

    That is why the comparison is invalid.

  24. Absolute fluff by joshdick · · Score: 1

    This is the fluffiest puff piece I've read in a while. The interviewer had the opportunity to ask a lot of good questions, but instead lobbed nothing but softball questions until the interview finally devolved into a Morpheus sales pitch. What a disappointment.

  25. Janet Weiss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who thought of the Rocky Horror Picture Show after hearing this guy's name?

  26. Re:since I'm lazy.. by oedneil · · Score: 0

    And how is that off topic? It directly relates to something that was said in the article.

  27. Re:The problem with comparisons to Betamax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > Fair use allows you to make copies and share them with friends.

    Wrong. Fair use allows you to make a copy for backup purposes, not for giving to a friend. As soon as you hand that copy to a friend (other than for safe keeping) you have broken the law.