Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Founder Wants Us To Find "Legitimate" Files
Just because I'm an writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Kevin Bermeister and Michael Speck have been developing technology to return search results on file sharing programs that point to pay-for content from the copyright holders. The article reports that there are trials planned for Australian ISPs, with interest from elsewhere on the globe."
kill that dead horse
What planet are these people on?
If people want to pay for it then they'll go to iTunes.
If they do not then they will use another P2P system instead.
Having the ISP intercept and redirect their traffic will only annoy the consumers and damage the reputation of the ISP. Much like the trials of Phorm in the UK - which has lead to customer desertion and legal challenges.
I wonder if the people who come up with such stupid ideas even use the internet sometimes.
Those Kazaa folks cheerfully installed adware and spyware on users computers for personal profit. It's worth remembering this when they say anything. They are greedy, selfish, mindless jerks, and most certainly can never be trusted whatsoever.
FTA:
"When an ISP's customers use a file sharing program such as LimeWire to, for example, search for a pirated music track, they are instead presented with a list of search results containing legitimate versions of the song and are given the opportunity to buy it instantly."
The day my ISP start manipulating my searches is the day when I cancel my subscription and move to greener pastures.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
FTFA:
"Files that aren't present on the list of illegal files are not blocked or impeded in any way."
Great! I'll just take your word for it then.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Sounds like that sharemonkey crap.
Yahoo! had their music search, and I was incredibly disappointed that it simply refused to return any free (as in beer) content. A friend of mine (Joe Frew, I wrote about him in the old K5 Paxil Diaries) had another friend host dozens of his original songs, I linked them from my (now defunct) web site, and you could not find these MP3s on any search engine!
Google is just as bad, even though they're getting better; tha last time I searched "Huckleberry Finn" (in the public domain) the first three hits were Amazon and the like. This is IMO incredibly shoddy.
There are literally thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of songs out there in myriad places whose artists WANT you to hear.
Trying to sell bits is insane, actually "buying" bits is even crazier, as crazy as buying a bottle of water when there's a perfectly good drinking fountain handy. Don't sell bits, sell the medium that stores the bits! If you're a band, sell tickets and merch and use your bits to make fans.
Nobody talented ever starved or was forced into another profession from copyright infrinegent, but many talented folks have starved or been forced out by obscurity.
BTW, there are thousands of FREE MP3s, OGGs, SHNs and FLACs on archive.org. If Kazaa's founder wants to go legit, he should make a service that allows us to find the truly free songs. If I want to hear the top 40 I'll just turn the radio on.
Free Martian Whores!
People still use Kazaa? I gave up on that lame duck the moment I realized that 99% of all songs listed where just 15 minutes longs recordings of static, screeching noise and one highly interesting instance of a 7 seconds long recording of Madonna saying "You stupid F***!!!"
I want a system that consolidates searching and links to all freely licensed content. There's plenty of it, if you know where to look, and it's all I need. It's just kind of a pain to track it down.
I don't think people searching on P2P networks for free music are willing to acquire the same music at a higher price.
So the guy who said "lets build a p2p app to exchange files illegal and i'll advertise in it and make much profit" is telling us we need to find legitimate files and will be re-directed clients to purchasable media? Hahahaahahahaha aaaaaahahahahahahahah Sucker!
I think this is a symptom of a much larger problem: file illegitimacy and deadbeat file creators. Those file creators should be offering support to the mothers of those files. This wham-bam-thank-you-mam file creation has to stop. I think it's a sign of poverty in some computing communities. If we bolster those communities: offer more education, jobs, community activities and support.
If we don't, those files will grow up to be members of gangs and resort to other criminal activity. Teaching abstinence doesn't work. People are going to go out and follow their human instinct and create files. We need to teach file creation control. And if necessary, abortion: sometimes you just have to delete a file - it's a hard decision and no file creator takes it lightly, but it has to be done. And we have to think of the health of the computer.
That's all. I didn't mean to make this a pro-deletion post.
I bought a full Pink Floyd set when I was younger.
now all the cds are scratchy and doesn't want to play anymore.
Nevertheless, if I am to believe the editors screechs, what I really bought is a licence for those songs...
=> I shouldn't have to buy full price for a new set, they should sell me the cds at cost of plastic and I just exchange them with the ones I have. Or I can argue that I have the RIGHT to download them, as I already have a licence for them.
Don't believe me ? Have a look at Walt Disney dvds. They are the only ones that propose a replacement disk at cost because they only sell you a licence to view...
=>Then the editor turns out a REMASTERED version ,which is covered by another licence, and that I don't have the rights for. The version I had is not findable in the market anymore, the editor changed names or something else, and I cannot get a replacement disk. Which they never offered in the first place.
Also I pay a tax on every recording medium I buy, to compensate the copies I will make for my private use, as I do not resell them.
Astonishingly the law doesn't recognize this tax as a blanket licence for use as a person. They want us to pay the tax and then pay an additional blanket licence.
So the market is skewed in favor of the editors that make it so that you have to pay and pay again FOR THE SAME THING.
A form of racket...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Where ever his media has significant market share, the population has made wild swings toward corporatism.
It occurred to me that one could use Creative Commons in conjunction with XMP (metadata tagging) to construct a peer-to-peer network for easier sharing of legitimate files combined with attribution.
More information about XMP and CC:-
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/XMP
If you aren't American, so they can go fuck themselves.
Sounds like they don't realize that you can have free AND legal content. Perpetuating the lies the RIAA is pushing that everything you get without paying is piracy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's going to be really hard for hulu to gain acceptance outside the US after telling everyone to fuck off.
Oh, and I certainly can buy Scott paper towels here in Canada.
There is no way this could possibly work.
They could go for hashes, but they would have to have a hash of every file they wanted to protect (not too difficult) and then break into the download stream to intercept the download traffic, completely download the file, re-hash it and then block that specific file for that specific user. The bandwidth, CPU, common sense, restrictions would make this impossible.
What they're doing is filenames. If you search for "Britney Spears" in your P2P window and it comes up with a list of files, if you try to download any of those files (legit or not) you'll get a pop-up browser window that will take to you a site to buy Britney Spears music (never mind that you might have been searching for a video, or a theme).
This simply won't work. Most P2P is encrypted, so they're not going to be able to decrypt the packets in realtime to get the searches. P2P protocols change so often and are so poorly documented that architecting an MitM attack against the unencrypted PROTOCOL would be dicey. And even if they did, that doesn't allow them to run arbitrary actions on the user's PC unless they install some sort of troyjan, and even then it may not work.