Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

KaZaa Suspends Downloads 382

Posted by timothy
from the put-it-next-to-your-decss-mirror dept.
chill writes: "'Download Temporarily Suspended -- Download of the KaZaA Media Desktop software is temporarily and voluntarily suspended pending Dutch court decision on January 31. We apologise for the inconvenience. Please check back at www.kazaa.com for more information.' --- Both the Linux and Windows client downloads are offline. I wonder what the judge thinks this will do to the tens, if not hundreds of thousands who already have the software?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KaZaa Suspends Downloads

Comments Filter:
  • even funnier (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Richthofen80 (412488)
    is that i'm sure the kazaa client is available for download from Morpheus, or one of the hundreds of other file sharing programs. Effectively, once one copy exists, software gains a sort of immortality... which the courts can't effectively dismantle.
    • kazaa and morpheus are the same network, so if you can download something from morpheus, you dont exactly need the kazaa client :)

      the downloadable installer actually gets most of the kazaa program from the fasttrack network, oddly enough....
    • by dozing (111230)
      Or you can just open up your Kazaa client and download Kazaa and install it on your... Oh wait... I suppose if I don't have Kazaa I can't open it... So I open Morpheus and download Kazaa and install it... Oh, I suppose if I already have Morpheus there's no real purpose in installing Kazaa since the use the same network... What was I saying?
    • i'm sure the kazaa client is available for download from Morpheus

      If you've got Morpheus, you don't need KaZaa. KaZaa is the main company, and Morpheus [music city] is just another client on the network.

      While their goals may be different-the software is effectively the same. If you use KaZaa, you notice that some users are @musiccity, while others are @kazaa.

      I've actually had people tell me that Music City is better than Kazaa.. but because there was more stuff on Music City.
  • by Mike the Mac Geek (182790) on Friday January 18, 2002 @12:48AM (#2860343) Journal
    Great. In one 24 hour period we have had stories on Universal's general screwing of it's customers, the network's reluctance to let us record shows in any shape or fashion, and now Kazaa shutting down pending litigation.

    What a happy joyous world I live in. How in the FUCK did we get to this point?
    • KaZaa hasn't shut down, they've just taken the program download off of their website. I've got KaZaa open right now, it's working fine.
    • You stole music, then distubeded it over a P2P network which the lovly, all knowing goverment could not control.
    • Don't forget Borland [slashdot.org] backing down.
    • How? Easy, just tell the writers at all those magazines that target the population at large to write an article about a 'useful' ;) tool or service (eg. DVD Genie in the January 15th PCWorld newsletter). The general public downloads the program, use it, and the worst part is flaunt it. "Look ma, I can play these DVD's that are cheaper from other countries." Soon after, everyone and their grandma knows about it. D'oh, attention from the authorities and soon followed by a lawsuit from a company.
    • by Rogerborg (306625) on Friday January 18, 2002 @06:45AM (#2861236) Homepage
      • In one 24 hour period we have had stories on Universal's general screwing of it's customers, the network's reluctance to let us record shows in any shape or fashion, and now Kazaa shutting down pending litigation. What a happy joyous world I live in. How in the FUCK did we get to this point

      What point? That there's more content freely available right now than there's ever been in the history of humankind? It's way harsh on Dmitri and Jon Johansson, but as far as the rest of us are concerned, what's the biggie?

      Don't get me wrong, I think it's loathesome that content distributors can tell us to our faces that we're all guilty (of whatever new offence they want to buy with "campaign contributions"), but in practical terms, they're fighting a losing battle, and I can show you precedent. The ex-Soviet Union.

      Like most truism, this one is actually true: The more they tighten their grip, the more star systems, er, customers, will slip through their fingers.

      When they tell us that we're all criminals whatever we do, when they make it harder to play by their rules than to get content via P2P or on a street corner, when they try to dictate demand by controlling supply, they'll create a black market that will supply the genuine demand of you and I and Joe Public. It happened in Russia, with far tighter controls at every level of society than even the RIAA and MPAA combined can buy in the USA. The War on Piracy will be about as successful as the War on Drugs, because they are both a War on The People.

      I mean, really, this is bad luck for Kazaa, but Kazaa screwed up by trying to control supply using authorisation servers. They joined the losing side there and then. If Kazaa goes under, another service will pick up the pieces, and the amount of content available will just grow and grow. The losers will be anyone who refuses to supply the demand, the winners will be you, me, Joe, and the lawyers.

  • by Alien54 (180860) on Friday January 18, 2002 @12:51AM (#2860358) Journal
    The Brad Waldell article Lawsuits in the Internet Age [avault.com] sums it up nicely; as he says:

    ''Never in human history has technology allowed the big to crush the small with so little effort, and never have the laws and infrastructure of the world been so set up to expedite this process. [...] In reality, the legal system is a nasty, ugly thing that unless you have a great deal of time, resources and money, you're up the creek.''

    He also explores the various myths of how the system works. For example -

    Myth #1: What matters is who is right. Sorry, wrong -- it matters who is willing to spend the most money proving they are "right."

    - and on it goes.

    I wish these guys well with their fight

    • by mjpk (86198)
      So the question is, as always, what should be done? Would we be better off, if there were no legal system? Should there be someone superior who would make things right for the little globo-citizen?? Propably no. The _system_ is the correct one in general terms, in democracies. It's the application that has number of bugs.
    • by dimator (71399) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:20AM (#2860487) Homepage Journal
      Well put yourself in "the big"'s position: suddenly, all the content (movies, music, etc) that you've made your billions with can be exchanged with next to zero effort by countless millions of people. Wouldn't you be doing something to defend your business? And don't give me that "The cat is out of the bag, they should evolve to use the internet." Let me repeat: BILLIONS of dollars. Why would they want to adapt when what they've been doing has gotten them so much cash?

      The only power they have is the legal system, and they are forced to utilize it.

      Note: I'm not passing judgement on who's right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that "the big" have their side to the whole "digital rights" story too. It would be stupid to expect them to give up and walk away.
      • And don't give me that "The cat is out of the bag, they should evolve to use the internet."

        But that's what the parent post is all about - they got big off of a system that would not work if it were brought in brand-new today, and now that they're big, they can crush opposition. Of course they don't want to adapt when what they've been doing has gotten them so much cash. The point is that the law allows obsolete business practices to litigate their way through a few more years of survival - hurting a lot of entrepreneurs and innovators in the process.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          it is amazing how human nature often allows people to discard rational logic to justify their actions. unfortunately, this issue isn't as moral unambiguous as people would like to believe. you (along with thousands of others) are saying that "the law allows obsolete business practices" regarding this issue. it's amazing that the _protection and preservation one's rightful property_ transformed overnight from an inalienable human right acknowledged by almost every society (though not by every political system) throughout time, into an "obsolete business practice." in reality, these immutable liberties haven't changed. what has changed is that technology stripped theivery of its legal reprecussions and made it amazingly easy.

          i especially like the quote, "hurting a lot of ... innovators in the process." file-sharing systems are indeed innovative. selling drugs on the street was innovative once too. planting a bomb in your shoe was an innovative form of terrorism. i think you get the point. the only good that can come of these innovations, is that steps can be taken to protect individuals from these threats to their natural liberties of life and livelyhood.

          a change in the system doesn't justify the violation of these most basic human rights. we're nothing more than looters using technology to our advantage, grabbing everything we can because we know there will be no reprecussions later on. we can't blind ourselves with these false arguments, or criticize the system for putting an end to our exploits.

          if the record companies/movie studios successfully utilize the law in order to preserve their rightful property, i applaud them.
          • ill bite (Score:5, Insightful)

            by SubtleNuance (184325) on Friday January 18, 2002 @08:40AM (#2861568) Journal
            it's amazing that the _protection and preservation one's rightful property_ transformed overnight from an inalienable human right acknowledged by almost every society (though not by every political system) throughout time, into an "obsolete business practice."

            Intellectual Property is a fiction, it is not property (as in tangible asset) at all. The act of creation ceases when the work is born, only in the 'intellectual property world" does a producer feel the right to control a work once he has borne it. Does a plumber call you and ask for a fee every time you flush your toilet? No, neither should a musician, actor, author or inventor ask for fees to exercise the purpose of their past creation. Meaning, that by its regular availability, the thing *has been created* and no further compensation is necessary.

            If I copy a book, I am creating a book. The original author was not present or required to make my copy - why should he be compensated? If a creator feels he needs to reach some artificial economics of scale to make his time worthwhile, thats his issue -- i refuse to have *MY* liberties eroded to enforce a concept of capitalist business practice. The creator has no business telling me what I may or may not do with my own time and equipment.

            Intellectual Property, (Copyright, Trademarks and Patents) have no place in an intellectually free society. Intellectual Property is a tool of economics and not a 'rightful property by inalienable human right' -- to suggest such is absolutely ridiculous. It is neither a 'right' nor a natural, self-evident thing. It is a concept, a construct, an agreement... and those who would use it as a economic hammer are no longer entitled to it.

            I no longer purchase any item that would re-enforce this system. I copy all my music CDs*, I download movies and use the library for all books and magazines. I also advocate the rest of us do as well.

            Ideas dont exist in a vacuum, and to suggest that a creation of the mind has a sole creat or with inalienable right to then control it is offensive to the rest of us.

            * Canadians, because our government collects a fee for the RIAA types with every CDR sold, are legally allowed to make copies of Music CDs OTHERS have bought at record stores. Stop buying and burn those discs!

      • There was an article in the New York Times about that [nytimes.com] this very day. (registration, yadda, blah blah, if someone wants to post the 'registration-free' link, please do; I don't remember how to construct them) Quite interesting.

        BTW, I didn't even know there was a KaZaa client for Linux. Where can I find it? :)
      • by Convergence (64135) on Friday January 18, 2002 @04:30AM (#2860927) Homepage Journal
        Which is chump change. Telephone and communications companies make more in a year than hollywood has made SINCE THE INVENTION OF THE VCR.

        Furthermore, they, as a group, have a monopoly on the creation of new fictional entertainment... Does this give you ideas?

        If hollywood could (say) get even a small part of the communications (aka, the delivery) pie, they'd make more money a year than they do now.

        Does this give you ideas for other sources of revenue? Make everything literally free (to download) on the internet. With, maybe, a royalty on home-user (IE, non-business) bandwidth, with statistical sampling to determine how much of that royalty should go to which entertainment industries for mass-market entertainment. Maybe add in hard drives or cd blanks. Basically, make something similar to the Audio-CDR mechanism.

        After all, if they increased home telephone/communication bills by even 10% for such a royalty. 100 million people spending $100/month (cable, telephone, internet), with a 10% royalty toward entertainment production starts moving into the billions of dollars/year range.

        Not only that, but suddenly there is MUCH less fighting over copyrights, hollywood doesn't have to worry about extra duplication, caues every duplication is more profit for them. It lets people do whatever they want on and with their computers.

        Yeah, its annoying, and if you only backup your hard drive onto CD's, you're subsidizing brittney spears. But on the other hand, it *will* give hollywood billions and billions of dollars, and stop digital control technology.

        And, in such a world, napster/gnutella/morpheus for movies would be the best thing ever for movies. 10x the bandwidth, means 10x the money coming in! Furthermore, they could make even more money from premium servers where you pay, but you get high-quality, uncorrupted, fast downloads.

        The idea is to not fight humanity, but try to go along with them.

        I heard about this idea, oh, about 3 years ago.

        So, what do you think.
        • Yeah, its annoying, and if you only backup your hard drive onto CD's, you're subsidizing brittney spears. But on the other hand, it *will* give hollywood billions and billions of dollars, and stop digital control technology.

          Here's the problem with that. How would anyone know which artists to subsidize? As it happens right now, sales go directly to the artist who is currently actually selling music (whether or not the establishment *likes* the music), not just to whoever some "music commission" decided had artistic merit.

          Further, if you don't like the power media companies have over artists now, imagine what it would be like in a world where they get no direct credit for anything they create. The "music commission" would no doubt end up being filled with industry lobbists who would try to funnel as much cash as they could to the media conglomerates, starving the people who actually stimulated demand in the first place.

          This idea is a non-starter. I'll take the current system over it, warts and all.

        • Wouldn't you be doing something to defend your business [...] The only power they have is the legal system, and they are forced to utilize it

        Hang on a minute while I just choke quietly in the corner. The only power? So, a big business can buy the laws they want through political bribes (aka campaign contributions), can have courts stop just about any activity they like (prima facia, before any guilt has been proven), and then can keep anybody they like in court until the little guy runs out of money and has to settle or starve, and that's the only power they have?

        What more do they need? Well, it would be nice if they could get laws passed that effectively allow them to instruct their government to provide paramilitary enforcers to imprison individuals either at home or abroad, but that's beyond the realms of fantasy, surely?

        Oh, wait, remind me, why did I buy that "Free Dmitri" T-shirt? How's Jon Johansson doing these days?

        Only the legal system. God help us all.

      • The only power they have is the legal system, and they are forced to utilize it.

        I don't have a problem with that. I just wish they would go after the copyright infringers, instead of the tookmakers. The whole idea of vicarious/contributory infringement is bullshit, because there's no way a tool can ever be made that knows the difference between infringing and non-infringing use. Going after toolmakers is an abuse of the system.

  • by asv108 (141455)
    For windows users, you can still use Morpheus [musiccity.com] for all your mp3 and pr0n downloads. I wouldn't be suprised if Morpheus is next considering Kazaa and Morpheus are based on the same technology from fastrack [fasttrack.nu]. Both morpheus and kazaa are similar to napster in the sense that they have centralized authentication, but they differ in the fact that there is not a centralized index. There is a good writeup on morpheus and kazaa available here [openp2p.com].
  • Yeah. I pay for music. See, I don't like record companies, so I just buy music online from bands I like. If that's not an option, well, I break down and buy the cd, but since I hate most music put out by the big guys, it all works out. MP3.com had some good stuff, particularly Americana (which is my personal choice)
  • Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chemical (49694) <nkessler2000@hot[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday January 18, 2002 @12:55AM (#2860378) Homepage
    Chemical's reasons for not caring:

    1) Even if the stupid Kaaza client is no longer available, Morpheus still is, and is a lot more popular a client anyways. That's like trying to shut down the WWW by banning Netscape.

    2) Morpehus/Kaaza suck anyways. Even though the idea behind it is pretty genius, in practice their software sucks. Besides crashing constantly, being spyware, bloatware, and every other type of negative ware there is, and just plain being a crappy client, there is no friggin music on their network. I try searching for something somewhat well known but not quite mainstream, say "The Descendents", and I get 0 results back. And any results I do get download at 1.1 k/sec, despite claiming the user has a bandwith of "300" whatever that means. Worst of all you can only get mp3s of up to 128kpbs. I'll stick with WinMX or eDonkey2000 for now. There are plenty of alternatives to Kaaza/Morpheus that don't suck ass.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)

      by VA Porware (534937)
      Actually you can get mp3s higher than 128kbps. In regedit, go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER, Software, Morpheus or Kazaa, change LimitBitrate to 0 and reboot!
  • As noted wlsewhere, both KaZaa and Morpheus share the FastTrack network. They are P2P clients but have the disadvantage that they are centrally authenticated (to force the advertising down the punters' throats).

    KaZaa users are still connecting as of 06:00 GMT today. The main problem is if the courts go after the authentication servers. This isn't happening yet.

    • It's worth noting, again, that giFT [sourceforge.net], the open-source FastTrack clone, is now undergoing network testing. Slashdot over to there, get their client, try it and see if you can't help them out. giFT, if it takes off, shouldn't have any of the advertising, authenticating, or other such problems of the commercial FT clients, right?
    • by daw (7006) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:49AM (#2860582)
      > The main problem is if the courts go after the authentication servers. This isn't happening yet.

      Actually, I have read (in the leaked RIAA memo on fasttrack) that if the authentication servers are unreachable, the software will connect to the network without authenticting. It comes with a long list of peers to try connecting to, which whenever it connects. If this is true, and kazaa etc. vanish with their servers, the software should keep working.

      On the other hand, I have read (in the New York Times article on video trading yesterday) that FastTrack have the ability to shut down the software remotely. And this would seem to be borne out by the time they forced everyone to upgrade to version 1.33. (Though maybe this was accomplished in the authentication process.)
  • by ErfC (127418) on Friday January 18, 2002 @12:57AM (#2860389) Homepage
    I wonder what the judge thinks this will do to the tens, if not hundreds of thousands who already have the software?

    It will get a story posted on /., prompting millions of users to simultaneously fire up their existing KaZaA software to see if the network is still up, thus melting the servers and shutting down the network...

  • by AMuse (121806) <{moc.sufoof} {ta} {esuma-todhsals}> on Friday January 18, 2002 @12:59AM (#2860400) Homepage
    In the book "Microserfs", by Douglas Coupland, the writer muses (This was, by the way, in about 1993):

    "Someday life will be nothing more than jail and shopping."

    'Nuff said.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:00AM (#2860407)
    Sure, lots of people use Fasttrack, and the network is fairly decent (in that it sort of works sometimes), unlike Gnutella, Open Napster, and Direct Connect. But now that Fasttrack implemented a cryptographic challenge (such that no open source client can enter the network easily without cracking the code) they have shot themselves in the foot since it's easier to shut down with only one company licensing the technology. I wouldn't download Kazaa anyways, since it's loaded with sypware, 3rd party programs, and the like. Morpheus is another Fasttrack program, and it is pretty decent, although it does have ads that popup through Internet Explorer (!) and they even often have sound or shockwave, or take up the whole screen! Your best bet is to use Freenet [freenetproject.org] once version 0.5 is released (really soon now) with Frost [sourcefoge.net]. All those who know the old, non-working Freenet will be impressed by 0.5, as it works incredibly well now.

    One other thing worth mentioning: Kazaa wants you to use it so that it can make money off your processing cycles, memory, and network connection. That's right; Kazaa plans to introduce technology to allow businesses to use the Kazaa network to burden the load of distributing large quantities of data.
    • [not a fanboy!]
      Ok ok... spyware. The spyware is detectable by all anti-virus software. Ad-aware will take care of the other spyware as well. The 3rd party programs can be not installed... if you know how to read and use your mouse.

      FastTrack, IMHO, has more promise than other P2P ideals. I love gnutella in many ways, but being able to get a full movie in 30 minutes kills the rest.

      ALSO-If Kazaa does use my unused cycles, memory and connection to make money... who cares? I'm downloading a small, ok large fortune of media from that network. Do you know how many people downloaded XP [for example] from these networks? That saved people thousands of dollars.

      What is your point?
    • One other thing worth mentioning: Kazaa wants you to use it so that it can make money off your processing cycles, memory, and network connection. That's right; Kazaa plans to introduce technology to allow businesses to use the Kazaa network to burden the load of distributing large quantities of data.

      Well, I for one would be more than happy to give some bandwidth, cpu power and memory for exchange if I could legally download music and stuff. If, however, the plan is to count on dumb users not to read eula and spend those resources without payment this sounds ridiculous.

  • Forget Kazaa (Score:2, Interesting)

    Have we forgotten that the system is supposed to be PEER-TO-PEER, not PEER-TO-SPYWARE-EMBEDDED-GET-RICH-QUICK-SCHEME-TO- PEER?

    True file sharing technology should not sneak Gator onto your hard drive or try to sell you CDs you don't want

    The future of P2P belongs to technologies like GNUtella, which can be used to set up truly decentralized file-sharing networks that CANNOT be struck down by tyrants disguised in business suits

    Yes, GNUtella is harder to use, klunkier, and tends to access smaller listings of files, but given time and work, these problems will be alleviated as greed-driven fake P2P systems like Napster and Kazaa are crushed by the moneyed interests controlling the legal system.

    Anyway, True Freedom belongs to those willing to work for it. Strong, free geeks will always find a way to overcome the forces of oppression. Forget Kazaa. P2P4Profit is a deservedly dead end.

    • I think at first I was kinda mad at your comment.

      But the last line got me. P2P4Profit is wrong. That is what clearly violates 'fair-use'.

      They can't make money selling your bootlegs.

      I still like Kazaa though... sorry.
  • by Dan Crash (22904) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:04AM (#2860422) Journal
    Well, that takes care of THAT! Piracy is finally solved. Move along now! Nothing to see here!
  • There are other decent file-sharing networks people can get on besides FastTrack, like OpenNap or Gnutella. Good riddance to Kazaa, I say.

    I just wish someone would write a file-sharing client for windows that doesn't suck so badly. Almost all of them have ads, spyware, and crummy interfaces.
  • resolution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spongman (182339) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:06AM (#2860434)
    now, more than ever, it's important to open up your outgoing bandwidth when you're not actively using your machine and share the love. i recommend downloading a gnutella client too and share your files over both networks. the only thing that can keep this technology alive is selfless participation...
    • Napshare (Score:4, Informative)

      by evilviper (135110) on Friday January 18, 2002 @05:27AM (#2861077) Journal
      It's amazing how closely this lawsuit coincides with the release of Napshare v1.0 [sf.net]. Napshare v1.0 being the best Gnutella client out there.

      Based loosely on GTK-Gnutella, it has the best features I've seen in any type of downloader. You feed it a string to search for, the minimum file size, a string that the files SHOULD NOT contain, and the minimum server speed if you like. (someone I know *cough**cough*) personally downloaded Jurassic Park 3 and Pulp Fiction in the past 2 days since they got Napshare... and that's 700MB/piece over a SLOW cable-modem (30KBps/7KBps).

      Did I mention it's been running for two days constantly, under heavy load, without any memory leaks, and not a single crash.
  • by guttentag (313541)
    The "communitieZ" topics at the bottom of their home page [kazaa.com] reads like a strangely appropriate twist on Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." ad campaign:

    Discuss. Chat. Defend.
  • Wow (Score:2, Funny)

    by J'raxis (248192)
    Well, it worked so well for DeCSS, didnt it? Didnt it?
  • This is like... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by suss (158993)
    Suspending downloads of Internet Explorer and expecting the web to automatically disappear?

    Way to go BUMA/STEMRA! (Dutch record company mob), a fine example of clear thinking...
  • by XenoBOFH (314125) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:12AM (#2860457) Homepage
    It is still possible to download KaZaA, a quick search found a copy here [pcworld.com]
  • Greetings!

    I just logged on to KaZaA, did a search on 'Spears' and lots of images, MP3s, videos, etc. are available for download. Could someone please explain?

    Thanks,

    E
  • Amen ! (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Murphy(c) (41125)
    We should do this more often, and call it the "International Internet Is Fast Again Day".

    Affectionatly known as IIIFAD.

    Murphy(c)
  • by instinctdesign (534196) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:19AM (#2860481) Homepage
    C|Net [news.com] is reporting on this, check out the article [com.com] which includes a few more details that haven't been mentioned here.
  • All I can say to that is a big simpsons Nelson-style "HA-HA!"

    Yeah, the content companies suck ass, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that NOT PAYING FOR THE SHIT YOU DOWNLOAD is going to make things any better. If you hate stupid restrictions, stop buying records from the opporessive major labels. Frequent places like Emusic.com, where the downloads are all real MP3s, no bullshit copy prevention. The albums are sold for a reasonable price, and the artists GET PAID.

    And finally, would everyone stop acting like they're somehow oppressed because they actually have to PAY for their media? Cry me a river. Don't put up with copy prevention bullshit, but don't go back and *REINFORCE ITS APPARENT NEED* by "trading" stuff on Kazaa...
    • It's easy. If the track you want is not available from Emusic what are you going to do?
      I want new Vangelis. EMusic has a whopping TWO albums of "Best songs" from 1984. Sweet. Oh wait... I already have those, bought for less than $5 each. Now I am supposed to pay 9.99 per month for right to download those two albums. I don't think it's a good deal.

      As for other new services where you can pay for download -- you either can't burn downloaded copies or you have to pay a full price (that exceeds the cost of a "regular" CD album) with a limit of songs. Until it gets to the level of Tivo where for 9.95 a month I can record and play and do whatever I want with the tv shows without limits it won't be a good deal and big guys will be giving out interviews screaming that "those bastards don't want to use our legal system!". Hope they'll get smart one day :)
    • > NOT PAYING FOR THE SHIT YOU DOWNLOAD

      OK. I'd like to pay to download songs. Where do I sign up?

      Here's the answer: nowhere. Your options are: either drive down to your nearest record store and pay for pressing, shipping, handling, packaging, advertising, sales assistance, cashiering, and post-sale security checks; or you can download it for free. What am I supposed to do if I like one particular song and would like a legal, electronic copy of it?

      The issue isn't about opression, or stealing being some kind of right. It's about a market that's unsatisfied.
      • Your options are: either drive down to your nearest record store and pay for pressing, shipping, handling, packaging, advertising, sales assistance, cashiering, and post-sale security checks; or you can download it for free. What am I supposed to do if I like one particular song and would like a legal, electronic copy of it?

        The issue isn't about opression, or stealing being some kind of right. It's about a market that's unsatisfied.


        Come to think of it, I'd really like nude pics of a petrified Natalie Portman with hot grits poured down her pants, but I can't have that either. So I deal with it, life moves on. Not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates what I'm trying to get across, which is, to quote the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want." If one don't like the purchasing options, yeah, that sucks, but that doesn't give one the right to just take for free whatever the heart desires.

        The fact that downloadable music (well, legally downloadable anyway) is a largely untapped market may be true, but it's irrelevant to the fact that people aren't giving anything back for the stuff they copy. You're blurring the issue. The fact remains, while the available options suck, not paying for stuff is still wrong. And cliched as it sounds, two wrongs still don't make a right.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore music freak - I'm painfully aware of how corrupt the industry is, and how much they jack both consumers and artists. But until something can be worked out, what else am I supposed to do? I can't stick it to the labels without sticking it to the artists. So I have to either bite the bullet and pay for the over-priced disc, or choose not to buy the stuff. Taking without paying is not an option.

        As for solutions? While Emusic's 128kbit MP3s (as oppposed to much nicer ~160kbps .OGGs or something) and relatively limited selection aren't exactly what I'm looking for either, it's a damn fine start. There's no bullshit encryption, and the prices are fair. You can even buy single tracks, etc. All these things are *exactly* what the "untapped" market you refer to are clamoring for. It's just not developed enough yet... Here's to hoping that a place built on fairness and rights for the consumer and the artist actually succeed.
  • by GuNgA-DiN (17556)
    I uploaded a mirror here: Windows [tripod.com], Linux [tripod.com]. If everyone uploads a copy of the program this thing will never go away!
  • by ebbomega (410207) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:30AM (#2860523) Journal
    Copywrite laws existed to protect the artist and not the corporations that bought the artists out.

    Music is intellectual property, not physical property. When are people going to figure this out?

    I remember the days when music copywrite was simply so that someone couldn't blatantly rip off some artist and then claim it as their own work. For instance, if The Verve decided to blaringly take a riff from a Rolling Stones tune without permission, the Rolling Stones should be given all the money that The Verve makes on said song, or at least a portion thereof.

    Now all of a sudden intellectual property means The Ability To Listen To said song.

    Since when do Music corporations have a right to limit how far the music is reached? Doesn't this compromise the artist's intent in itself? Honestly, what this is doing is once again putting more power in the hands of those with the money and reinforcing Murphy's Golden Rule (whoever has the etc.).

    Morons. All of them. Especially since they don't realize the awesome power (wow, this sounds like a speech from Masters of the Universe or something) of Filesharing, and that the existence of mp3s/Divx/mpgs/exes/whatevers is going to negate any attempt to control flow of music/information. napster got shut down. Everybody said it was over. Out sprung a dozen clones. Now Kazaa gets shut down. If Morpheous, Audiogalaxy et al follow suit, I personally guarantee this number reaching out in the fifties. And eventually genre-driven ones and all that kind of stuff.... It'll be glorious.

    Wow. That was cheesy. I'm gonna stop before it gets worse.
    • That ended, when Puff Daddy Blatantly Ripped off the Police (I'll be *MISSING* You?), Shaggy Blatantly Ripped off Steve Miller Band (Listen to ANGEL and then The Joker, my lord!), and countless other rappers decided that other *good* classic rock songs didn't actually deserve their copywrites.

      So... I'd say... sometime in the mid-90s.

      Maybe mid-80s, if you count Vanilla Ice (Under Pressue and Ice Ice Baby, yeeesh).
      • when Puff Daddy Blatantly Ripped off the Police (I'll be *MISSING* You?)

        Hrmm.. we all saw Sting on MTV singing WITH Puffy right? Puffy has loads of cash, he paid everyone enough to sample those songs.

        Shaggy Blatantly Ripped off Steve Miller Band (Listen to ANGEL and then The Joker, my lord!),

        Steve Miller Band? Come on! Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders. Whoever ownes the rights to SMB songs needed the cash, trust me. But, just because two songs sound similar doesn't make them the same. Plenty of songs are ripped from each other... you just didn't bother to listen close enough because it's not rap vs. classic rock.

        and countless other rappers decided that other *good* classic rock songs didn't actually deserve their copywrites.

        It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist, you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.

        But while we are on the subject, most Rap songs don't take beats or lyrics from classic rock songs. They take many of their beats from Funk songs. They also take their beats from other rap songs.

        No one ever points out that Country songs take from Classic Rock songs. Just noticed that.

        People get paid... this isn't a rip off, it's business. I like Classic Rock first, but I'm also a Rap fan. Sometimes I don't like the 'new' songs, but at times I find myself applauding the 'new' song for the work they've done.

        Look at "Changes" by Tupac. It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons.
        • Steve Miller Band? Come on! Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders.

          The fucking-asshole-RIAA has this to say about your delusion: Tell me, where is 'shaggy' on this list compared to Steve Miller Band [riaa.org]? For the record, Im not a Steve Miller fan. I just feel that 'rap and hip hop' is to the art of music as as television commercials are to the art of theatre. The sole reason for its existence is to sell a product (which the performers are in-and-of-themselves) such as Shaggy, Backside Boys, 2Pac or Brittany Spears. This is not art, its a catchy jingle for the performer-as-artist-product.

          you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.

          If i recall correctly there was a lawsuit sometime-ago that made sampling legal via compulsory licensing... where ice-ice-baby fits in this is im not sure.

          People get paid... this isn't a rip off, it's business.

          What? How does 'business' end up being a justification for an act... as if it is self-evident and natural? Give me a break pal.

          Take your racism somewhere else. && It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist

          Wow, a little defensive arent we?

          It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons

          Not to sound to harsh, im sure there must be some merit and talent somewhere in the rap/hip-hop world... just that 99% of it is blatant pap...here are always exceptions to the rule...
          • 1) Steve Miller Band: Your RIAA list proves nothing. Look at the top part of the list. Music sales != good music.

            2) So classic rock, and only classic rock is the true music? Most artists are about selling their product... music. Listen to the music next time. Sure, lots of hip-hop is commercial, but much more isn't. Tupac for example has some of the most profound things to say about society, that I've ever heard. I guess it's a matter of listening and not judging until you hear it.

            3) Vanilla Ice was sued because he ripped off the beat. He claimed that it was different because he, or someone, added on beat every X seconds or whatever. Other artists that sample give full credit, and the record company gives 'points' on the album sales to compensate the 'rip'.

            4) If you haven't noticed there is a huge business behind all that music you hear. Plenty of times rappers come up [to stardom] with only lyrics. When they hit the RIAA-fan some white guy in a suit thinks that it would be cool to use the twangs from Stairway to Heaven.

            5) Yes, I'm defensive. When I hear this 'rip-off' argument it's being produced by some racist piece of shit. I'm not Black, and that isn't why I jumped.

            6) "I'm sure there must be some merit..." Exactly... you don't know because you haven't listened to it.

            One thing I can say with confidence though, rock and roll [in general] is a blatant rip-off of other's work anyways. How many times have I listened to covers? By respectable artists, like Jimi Hendrix or even the Beatles? I mean, this is the whole song that is ripped off. The genre was ripped off. 'Nuff said.

            All in all, I'm still a good classic rock fan. Just keep that Steve Miller bullshit away from me.
            • 1) Steve Miller Band: Your RIAA list proves nothing. Look at the top part of the list. Music sales != good music.

              So you agree with me? I was disagreeing with you that Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders definition of artistic value... thats how *you* defined it until i presented the RIAA list, at which time you changed your mind about what 'success' is. Holy shit man, you cant argue by agreeing with me.

              2) So classic rock, and only classic rock is the true music?

              No, who said it was?

              Most artists are about selling their product...No, publishers are about selling a product. Being an "artist" means you are compelled to create by your very existence. An "Artist" doesnt care to sell millions of units, sure, he likes to eat (as do us all), but he wont stop being an artist if it ceased being 'profitable'. If he did, he wouldnt have been an "artist" in the first place.

              Tupac for example has some of the most profound things to say about society, that I've ever heard. I guess it's a matter of listening and not judging until you hear it.

              Agreed. Ive never listened to Tupac. I have no opinion of the lyrics (or music). This is why i said "there are exceptions..".

              3) Vanilla Ice was sued because he ripped off the beat. He claimed that it was different because he, or someone, added on beat every X seconds or whatever. Other artists that sample give full credit, and the record company gives 'points' on the album sales to compensate the 'rip'.

              I believe that the legal issue had not been made of rap-sampling until this(??) test case. After this(??) test case a rap-sampler was required to pay royalties to the original copy-right owner.. again.. Compulsory license of music, for the purpose of rap-sampling was created.

              4) If you haven't noticed there is a huge business behind all that music you hear.

              you dont know what kind of music I listen to... Ill just tell you that your wrong. I dont pay for music that has been time-shifted (i copy it all from friends and dload mp3s). I also listen to allot of self-published artists.

              Plenty of times rappers come up [to stardom] with only lyrics. When they hit the RIAA-fan some white guy in a suit thinks that it would be cool to use the twangs from Stairway to Heaven.

              What kind of racist crap is that? Hey man, WTF is this "white guy with suits" bullshit. That is pretty fucking racist, IMHO. Or, are you trolling.. hmmm.

              5) Yes, I'm defensive. When I hear this 'rip-off' argument it's being produced by some racist piece of shit.

              Suggesting the music is 'ripped off' doesnt make the guy a racist. If the guy is racist it doesnt make the music *not* riped off. There is no relationship. Also, the 'ripping off' argument in music is worthless, mostly done by self-congratulatory music-wonks trying to pull a turf-pissing match with a commoner. Art can be the inspiration for other works, only when you involve capitalist-copy-right && $ does this become an issue.. the whole idea is bunk.

              All in all, I'm still a good classic rock fan. Just keep that Steve Miller bullshit away from me.

              ...again, your jerking your knee, when i explicitly said "im not a fan".

              Like shooting fish in a barrel.

        • It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist, you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.

          So...if you don't like rap, you're a racist?

          But while we are on the subject, most Rap songs don't take beats or lyrics from classic rock songs. They take many of their beats from Funk songs. They also take their beats from other rap songs.

          Here's part of the reason I don't like rap music. At the risk of being labelled a "racist" in your eyes, it all seems to sound the same to me. I understand that some people like it, and it's their perogative. I don't begrudge them for liking it. I just don't care for the sound of it myself.

          No one ever points out that Country songs take from Classic Rock songs. Just noticed that.

          Well, I don't like Country, either - does that mean I'm also racist? Or does it mean that I "even out"? My isagreement with Country is that I have a hard time with "twang" - it just gets on my nerves. (Yes, my musical tastes are rather closed-minded, I guess. Classical, Metal, Rock, Classic Rock, and Jazz)

          Look at "Changes" by Tupac. It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons.

          Yep - like not liking rap music in general. =)

          Seriously - just because someone makes an overgeneralization towards rap music, it doesn't mean they're racist. They may just not like the sound. They may have obnoxious neighbors that feel it necessary to play rap music at extremely high volumes at 2am during the week. (Hell, that's enough to make you hate any genre of music, if youre someone who has to work during the day, and thus has to be able to sleep at night)
          • No no... I really didn't mean to imply that anyone who hates hip-hop/rap is racist.

            Who cares what you like? I don't.

            My point is, the same old song and dance [Aerosmith] that we hear about it being ripped off is perpetuated by people who are racists. [usually]

            Yes, there is sampling, yes there is full 'beat-stealing'. But 99% of the time people are getting paid for it. Do you think a big time commercial guy like Master P [whom I don't like] is going to risk his multi-million dollar empire by copying a few drum hits? No... the original artists get points on the album and get paid depending on album sales.

            Seriously - just because someone makes an overgeneralization towards rap music, it doesn't mean they're racist.

            No, it makes them prejudice :-)

            I still stick to my statement: "All white people are prejudice" [joke, like GNU]

            For the record, i'm white.
  • Apportioning blame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Boiling_point_ (443831) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:33AM (#2860536) Homepage
    Q. Why is it that it's the Napsters, KaZaAs and Morpheii of this world that seem to get squashed by courts, rather than, say, Gnutella?

    A. Courts squash what they can define.

    Just like America turned (rightly or wrongly) a non-nation-state terrorism incident into an old-fashioned "my country vs. yours" war, courts/governments will try and shut down companies with business models that (they argue) are based on piracy and individuals that write "harmful code".

    <pessimism>
    The day someone anonymously builds a true peer2peer network that scales well [slashdot.org] and people choose it ahead of something with advertising in it, the genie really will be out of the bottle. Sadly, that's when governments will decide that "anti-supply" laws we're talking about now are useless, and the "anti-demand" laws will get tougher - in essence, they'll start going after 'users' rather than 'dealers'.
    </pessimism>

    • Isn't the real reason for the war the fact that they didn't turn over the terrorists?

      IE, we're not invading them because they have terrorists inside their borders (in which case, we'd have to invade half of the world), but because they didn't turn over *the* group of terrorists that killed 3000 of our people.
      • by gorilla (36491) on Friday January 18, 2002 @04:19PM (#2864649)
        Nations don't normally hand over accused criminals unless the nation requesting extradition provides reasonable evidence that those accused may have committed the crime and usally that the requesting nation will treat them in a fashion which is compatable with what the originating nation would expect, no torture, or other cruel inhuman or degrading treatments. In otherwords, if Ebolia demands extradition of George W. Bush for the crime of eating pork, then the US is not going to hand over George W. Bush. Even if eating pork was a crime in the US, Ebolia is still going to have show that GWB is a reasonable suspect. It's also very rare for a nation to extradite unless there is a treaty with the requesting nation.

        The US refused to show the Taliban the evidence they claim they have against bin Laden. Afganistan also has not extradition treaty with the US. The Taliban was therefore justified under international law to not extradite bin Laden.

  • Gee... (Score:4, Informative)

    by NoWhere Man (68627) on Friday January 18, 2002 @01:38AM (#2860547) Homepage
    Looks like I might just have to download it from 1 of another billion locations like this one:

    http://www.mpex.net/software/download/kazaa.html
  • I find it odd that, even though KaZaA has suspended downloads, their download counter (at the top of the page at http://www.kazaa.com/en/defend.htm [kazaa.com], for example) is still going up. This might be automatic (it's going up very smoothly and uniformly), but even so it's amusing. In addition to Morpheus [musiccity.com], there's also Grokster [grokster.com], which likewise licenses the FastTrack technology. Is file sharing really dead? I don't think so. I mean, the way courts generally work, organizations like the RIAA and MPAA would have to sue every file sharing program making company separately. In addition to the legal fees, the industries are lagging behind by a year or at least several months... Programs are around for a while before any suit gets filed, and then the suits take time. True, it's hardly optimal that file sharing programs rise and fall every so often, but a bit of a shakeup is good now and then. Besides, they're growing faster than people can try to get them shut down. Direct Connect is quite good for some things. Gnutella, although it sucks, cannot be eradicated. And if something like Freenet [sourceforge.net] ever gets somewhat usable and efficient, they won't really have anyone left to sue. Maybe then they'll concentrate on making movies and music and software good enough that we want to buy it, instead of producing crap on a stick, trying to limit what we can do with it, and suing everyone in sight. Marketing can only do so much to sell a bad product (although M$ has done an entirely too good job of it...).
  • KaZaA are supposedly acting in accordance with the court decision by stopping download of their software - BUT - this will not stop the network from existing.

    In order to really stop the network from existing, the KaZaA guys nead to really break it - for instance, force a download of a newer version of KaZaA media desktop and disable it on a particluar date.

    Thinking about it, maybe the versions we all have contains a remote control code which disables them, thus disabling the entire network.

    It is enough that the network is inactive for a few days or fragmented enough to make it stop. There are some mechanisms built into KaZaA to prevent that from happening, but it is not impossible.

    -- Arik
    • Still, this is yet another version of Obscurity. So what if they release a broken client/server. I've already got source to kazaa-like places (I used it to connect my linux box to them). Personally, I archive everything I get my grubby fingers on. As an example, I found a place I could download VirtualDub 1.3d, the avi editor that could convert ASF's. Yet another example is that I still use WinAMP 2.23 , and yes it's still shareware. I don't trust the AoL version until I comb the code. It'll have to be ASM, but I want to look for network tattletale code. Well, all of my data (in collecting rarelike downloads), I have about 4 archive cd's.

      Josh Crawley
      contact if you need something ,ahem, rare.
      jwcrawle aght iupui daught edu (just say it out loud)
  • Good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheCrunch (179188) on Friday January 18, 2002 @04:47AM (#2860968) Homepage
    Personally, I'd like to see Kazaa, Grokster & Morpheus taken down. Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid Grokker, but every time a popular P2P service gets taken down, a newer and better one rises to the top.

    When people wanted more than Napster, Scour appeared. When they both stopped, Kazaa etc.. hit the scene.

    It's only a matter of time before Kazaa etc.. are stopped completely and I look forward to the "next big thing". Although annoying, this leads to progress and I hope it'll end up with a P2P network that you *can't* kill and that's better than Gnutella.
  • ...was the fact that a huge file could be downloaded from several people that had the same file. In essence, enough people with 1.5mb down 300kb up cable modems could effectively share a file with a guy on a DS3 and have it be efficient.

    I don't know of any other file sharing clients that allow this kind of transfer capability, so if anyone knows of one, it might be a good idea to get the hype started!
  • I went to download the Windows client a couple of days ago and the download page on Kazaa.com said something to the effect of "Downloads are temporarly unavailable". But meanwhile the little download counter on the top of the page was still chugging along past 3mil downloads or so.
  • It does not matter what kind of spyware crap gets installed on your system, getting rid of it is much easier. A nice way to tell them up yours with Gator and the rest. Lavasoft ad-ware will remove these beasts (and others) from your computer. It even has a reference library that is updated by people who hate spyware as much as we do. Install, scan, select, and remove. Send Gator and its spyware alike where it belongs, in the garbage. Download ad-ware from here: http://www.lavasoft.de

panic: can't find /

Working...