Does Gnutella not have encryption? If not then eventually there will be a version that does and then the problem will be solved.
Encryption solves nothing because that's not how that not how they're identifying file shares. They run the same client you do (e.g. KaZaA etc.) and search for popular files. Then they download those files and use search features in that client to look for other files on your machine. During the download they identify your IP address since they are connected to you and the files they can get from you. Then they verify that the file is the song it is supposed to be. This method works whether or not the file is encrypted because they get the files the same way any other downloader would. It's not like they're tapping the Internet like a telephone line and seeing the files zipping between two other users.
"We got an e-mail last week from someone saying 'How did you find me? I used Peer Guardian' and he thought that would save him from our spiders. There is nowhere to hide."
Peer Guardian is only as good as the list of blocked IP addresses you have. No doubt these scanning companies are trying to acquire and use IP addresses outside ranges already identified with their companies.
WARNING: Google is a registered trademark of the Google Search Engine. Before you know it, you'll have more than the RIAA after you for misuse of their property.
Duh. Like many people, my computer is in my study, not my living room. The distance between them is non-trival. In fact, it's a distinct advantage to have my study far from the chaos of the living room.
Even if I ran a wire the distance (assuming that's possible), I won't have any remote control functionality over the viewing functions. Not the recipe for a satisfactory viewing experience.
I guess what they really need to do is be able to download this to an Internet-enabled, Tivo-like PVR box and allow more than this sucky 24-hour viewing window.
You know, it takes me like 3 minutes to see how this could be so very much better than what they're offering. And the people who thought this kludge up are getting paid ever so much more than I am.
Users can watch the film an unlimited amount of times before the movie expires.
RTFA. Users can watch the movie an unlimited number of times within a 24 period that must commence within 30 days of the movie download. Not at all the same thing.
The real kicker here is that it would cost Disney NOTHING more to make it unlimited viewable for the whole 30 days, and then it would be a heck of a deal. Instead they're still penny-pinching.
I like this, but what's the best way to show this on my TV. I much prefer the TV to the computer screen for movie viewing. In fact, that is probably the one thing stopping me from downloading my first movie tonight.
Hope Disney will include everything they have that is over 2 years old.
So far only KaZaa addresses are listed. I find it hard to believe that KaZaa is the only network they are pursuing. Anyone have reports of other network's users being sued yet?
RIAA site gets the crap vandalized out of it before the weekend is up
And just how does that really harm the RIAA? No way that I can determine, except that they can try and pursue the vandals under the law as well. It's not like you tossed a firebomb into their headquarters or anything.
Thanks (presuming you meant me and not one of the other people in the reply chain).
Didn't seem to prevent me from being (unfairly) modded as Flamebait however for attempting to point out the obvious realities of the situation. When you have $50 Billion in the bank, there is a great deal you can do to protect yourself and your business -- which seems to be beyond some of the moderator's imaginations.
Microsoft has $50 billion cash in the bank. That either buys a lot of small companies attempting to assert IP rights...
...and/or a lot of lawyers and political figures to push resolution of this case off to about the point where Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse finally does expire.
The fact that it's in San Francisco is an added bonus.
The fact that it's in San Francisco is not nearly the added bonus it once was. The social policies of the current city government have made much of the city -- particularly the southern half -- into a place you do not want to walk through.
If you're going to be in Northern Arizona, come down to Scottsdale (suburb of Phoenix, no relationship to Harry Potter or any intellectual property held by J.K. Rowling) and visit Taliesin West -- architect Frank Lloyd Wright's western home and design studio.
As far as Southern Arizona is concerned, the Biosphere 2 is probably not worth the trip.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, fiction does sell well these days.
Encryption solves nothing because that's not how that not how they're identifying file shares. They run the same client you do (e.g. KaZaA etc.) and search for popular files. Then they download those files and use search features in that client to look for other files on your machine. During the download they identify your IP address since they are connected to you and the files they can get from you. Then they verify that the file is the song it is supposed to be. This method works whether or not the file is encrypted because they get the files the same way any other downloader would. It's not like they're tapping the Internet like a telephone line and seeing the files zipping between two other users.
Peer Guardian is only as good as the list of blocked IP addresses you have. No doubt these scanning companies are trying to acquire and use IP addresses outside ranges already identified with their companies.
Napster?
AudioGalaxy?
Just when was this letter sent?
I think you missed the part that free Napster is no longer in competition with proposed Snapster.
WARNING: Google is a registered trademark of the Google Search Engine. Before you know it, you'll have more than the RIAA after you for misuse of their property.
Duh. Like many people, my computer is in my study, not my living room. The distance between them is non-trival. In fact, it's a distinct advantage to have my study far from the chaos of the living room.
Even if I ran a wire the distance (assuming that's possible), I won't have any remote control functionality over the viewing functions. Not the recipe for a satisfactory viewing experience.
I guess what they really need to do is be able to download this to an Internet-enabled, Tivo-like PVR box and allow more than this sucky 24-hour viewing window.
You know, it takes me like 3 minutes to see how this could be so very much better than what they're offering. And the people who thought this kludge up are getting paid ever so much more than I am.
RTFA. Users can watch the movie an unlimited number of times within a 24 period that must commence within 30 days of the movie download. Not at all the same thing.
The real kicker here is that it would cost Disney NOTHING more to make it unlimited viewable for the whole 30 days, and then it would be a heck of a deal. Instead they're still penny-pinching.
Of course not, they're too busy extending copyrights from here to eternity.
Hope Disney will include everything they have that is over 2 years old.
When asked for comment on this latest discovery they succinctly replied: "We'll see about this after our lawyers and lobbyists are finished with it."
I'm sure they'll have a family plan for situations like yours. Maybe even the same jail cell, after the next round of pending legislation is passed.
Try your best to do this with a copy protected CD and maybe kill two birds with one stone in the process.
17-year-old-son: Some movies of barely legal teens doing everything with barnyard animals that I downloaded off the Internet.
Father: Thank God it's not MP3s. For a moment I'd thought you'd really gotten us in trouble there.
In True Type?
Thanks.
Yes.
So far only KaZaa addresses are listed. I find it hard to believe that KaZaa is the only network they are pursuing. Anyone have reports of other network's users being sued yet?
Are you really to paint a big red target on yourself for an onganization that has more money -- and less ethics -- than you do?
And just how does that really harm the RIAA? No way that I can determine, except that they can try and pursue the vandals under the law as well. It's not like you tossed a firebomb into their headquarters or anything.
Thanks (presuming you meant me and not one of the other people in the reply chain).
Didn't seem to prevent me from being (unfairly) modded as Flamebait however for attempting to point out the obvious realities of the situation. When you have $50 Billion in the bank, there is a great deal you can do to protect yourself and your business -- which seems to be beyond some of the moderator's imaginations.
The fact that it's in San Francisco is not nearly the added bonus it once was. The social policies of the current city government have made much of the city -- particularly the southern half -- into a place you do not want to walk through.
It is even better from the tunnels the bring you through the cliff face to see the astonishing sight of The Back Side of Water.
If you're going to be in Northern Arizona, come down to Scottsdale (suburb of Phoenix, no relationship to Harry Potter or any intellectual property held by J.K. Rowling) and visit Taliesin West -- architect Frank Lloyd Wright's western home and design studio.
As far as Southern Arizona is concerned, the Biosphere 2 is probably not worth the trip.
If you're going to visit the club, read the book first to fully appreciate this den of inequity.
(Just an unsolicited endorsement from a /.er who heard the author speak recently on a local radio interview show.)