Michael Weiss Interview

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."

Comments

nothing is more interesting than...

[sum.zero]

new ad models!!!

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

sum.zero

Re:nothing is more interesting than...

[lheal]

new ad models, especially if they dress appropriately.

whoo-ee!

[sulli]

more spyware! my favorite!

Re:whoo-ee!

[eobanb]

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 Morpheus uses a horribly outdated implentation of the Gnutella protocol, which wastes bandwidth and returns fewer results for searches.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?

Following the case

[Polycom Sucks]

" 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.

Ad models are the problem.

[N5]

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.

Making asses of US

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Making asses of US

[Mattcelt]

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.

RIAA trying to outspend opponents?

[spagetti_code]

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.

The pretender

[AgentGray]

Little girl: Are you a CEO of Streamcast Networks?

Michael Weiss: I am today.

Oh, wait. That's Michael T. Weiss

Dang. Ms. Parker

Re:The problem with comparisons to Betamax

[femto]

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.