New Kazaa Lite Protects Identity 668
Denver_80203 writes "Found this story about the new Kazaa K++ 2.4.0 and it's new sister program which claim to protect your identity while sharing files. Any of you folk know how legit this could be? We all knew it wouldn't be long... is this the war or just another battle?"
This isn't surprising. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Just in time for the next move in this move-countermove chess game. . .
What's needed.. (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA Should be commended (Score:5, Insightful)
umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Database of IP addresses is going to protect us ?
Cmon now. What prevents RIAA from using anonymous IP blocks that they can purchase legally for use?
Seems pretty weak to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Not letting people see what other files a user has might be a bit more useful, but I don't think either of these measures is going to do much to stop the RIAA from prosecuting people.
Not true. (Score:5, Insightful)
The new feature that blocks users from seeing ALL files, however, is VERY smart. All 50 million users (pulled that number out of thin air, should be close) now appear to be sharing only the ONE file you searched for. Makes hiding in the sea of users fruitful.*
* Disclaimer: Don't steal music. :)
Is it a good thing to not share? (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone did this, wouldn't that kill P2P file sharing? Isn't that what the RIAA wants to happen anyway?
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
How would using a different IP be in anyway entrapment?
The only way a case could be thrown out for entrapment is if the RIAA IM'd you and asked you to download a file, then turned around and sued you for copyright violation.
Hate to Burst your Bubble (Score:5, Insightful)
To borrow from the other scourge of the internet, They'll just pay people to work from home for $1000s a week!
All they'll do is pay some one who wants money to run their program using their home DSL, Dial up or Cable Modem. Then the blocking of RIAA's 'known' addresses would become as big as every high speed residential network on the planet.
Re:K++ edition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Entrapment laws are very specific and have nothing to do with this.
The DMCA does not apply because they are the copyright holder and because they would not be circumventing any recognized encryption method (TCP is not an encryption method, regardless of how one tries to twist the definitions of the words).
This is probably quite legal, and IMO as an occasional trader of copyrighted files, fair play. Unfair play would be if they located my IP address, coerced my ISP into providing my physical address, and then came over for a visit.
Of course, all they would find is an 'accidentally' unsecured wireless access point connected to my cable modem and a tinfoil hat.
Fanning the flames (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this legal? If so, should we really advocate it?
If people are stealing music, and a company attempts to block the people from whom the music is being stolen, with the intent of protecting the identity of the pirates, isn't there some line that's being crossed somewhere?
And even if it
No, I don't think music piracy is the big reason why CD sales are falling. It's a larger issue than just p2p apps, but it gives the RIAA
I digress.
This is really stupid of KaZaA to do, bottom line, I'd say.
Re:Well ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:K++ edition (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't agree with this because even with kazaa lite, you are sharing by default. So everything you download is automatically shared unless you click that 'don't share' box or move it from your shared directory. And considering that most kazaa users are average folks, they won't bother to configure the application or mess with any settings because they are already happily downloading music. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.) So most people are sharing whether they know it or not.
Re:This isn't surprising. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bittorent exlpained..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kazaa K++ is an excellent program (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, something on your system is clearly re-installing Gator without your permission. Most adware-funded packages crippled if you forcably remove the spyware components. They will attempt to repair themselves if this happens.
The fact is, AdAware found it and removed it. You check back a few weeks later and it was back. How is that AdAware's fault?
Re:This isn't surprising. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I would be surprised if Amazon and others do the sampling themselves. Most likely, they are supplied with the samples by the record companies themselves. Check out several web sites. Are the images, audio samples, and even copy about the albums any different from one site to another?
B) Intent also enters into sampleing under fair use. If I write a review of the new Harry Potter book that quotes from the scene when a certain character dies, and uses a quote to reveal the ending of a book, I could be sued if it seemed my intent was to get people not to buy the book. Extracting material from a work for the expressed purpose of damaging the commercial viability of the work is not allowed.
Now, do you want to face a judge and explain why you and your friends were hosting random 20 second perfect quality samples of music in light of the fact that a system exists that would recombine them into a perfect copy? What compelling 'fair use' intent could you claim? Throwing up your hands and saying "lordy! the law lets us use samples as fair use" isn't going to cut it.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This isn't surprising. . . (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, well nobody seems to want to stop the RIAA, so the public does whatever it can to make things somewhat fair again. They steal and barely even get a slap on the wrist. We steal and they want to send us to jail for 20 years. What kind of bullshit is that?
Re:This isn't surprising. . . (Score:1, Insightful)
Radio stations exist due to advertising and payola. They tell you what to listen to, plus or minus the constraint of being /just interesting enough/ to keep you from switching channels. P2P has no such restrictions.
Re:This isn't surprising. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
which is something that really doesn't sit well with me, and certainly wouldn't sit well with the uber-rich lobbyists who got the DMCA signed in the first place.
Ok, as soon as you figure out how to beat the uber-rich at the lobbying game, you let us know. Yeah yeah... go vote, I know. I already do that. The problem is that there are so damn many laws out there that nobody can understand it all or even form an opinion on most things anymore. Unless you're a lawyer, and even then you have to specialize to be any good, you're not going to understand the law. They pile law on top of law on top of law, and damn little ever gets removed. So basically it comes down to the fact that its hard to educate people about why something is bad when you have to try to explain not only the law, but also various court rulings, especially in not-so-well defined areas such as fair use. People's eyes roll back in their heads and they simply accept that they don't understand and that they won't be able to understand, and therefore they can't care about it.
If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA(meaning the record companies) only exists because the artists and the consumers haven't really questioned their existence. Artists stand to make a lot of money without the RIAA in place. Why not make all music free? If you want to brave the p2p networks for different quality mp3s and such help yourself. OR, you can pay $5 directly to the artist to download the cd from their website.
Artists can make MORE than enough money from licensing their music(think movie scores, and commercial soundtracks), and live performances. Without having to pay large portions of their income to the record companies, artists stand to make a LOT more money, once the RIAA is gone.
The artists you see fighting p2p etc, are the ones that NEED the RIAA to survive. I'm talking about the sell-out corporately manufactured groups that wouldn't last if the RIAA wasn't there to spam their name all over the radio and mtv every 10 minutes. Those are the only artists that NEED the RIAA, and if we lose them, frankly, here is one slashdot poster that could care less.
It's not that I mind paying for music, but isn't it about time for a paradigm shift? Natural selection has provided an easier and better way to get new music and the record companies are a dying breed.
I have a couple thousand mp3's on my hard drive that I didn't pay for, but I also have heard a lot of new artists that I will jump at the chance to see live, or buy merchandise from.
I'm a bit of an aspiring dj, and I buy records from artists that I've heard and liked through p2p. If it wasn't for p2p those artists wouldn't have had my purchase.
The problem doesn't lie with the consumer.
Re:Submitted for your approval: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, eliminating the ability of the *AA to trawl the networks with bots would yield an escalation, two of which I'll guess:
I still think a Turing test for searches as you've proposed is a step in the right direction.
Re:Submitted for your approval: (Score:1, Insightful)
Generate a challenge that is a hash code based on the file size - that way when downloading from multiple sources, no need to repeatedly enter in a response.
Can anyone think of any problems with this concept?
Re:RIAA Should be commended (Score:3, Insightful)
no. it's not what we want. But when has that ever stopped the government from passing a draconian law?
Drug laws, for all thier good intentions definitely fall into this category.
Judge Posner's Aimster Analysis Isn't Helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with the Napster, and now Aimster, opinions is simply this: the 9th Circuit adopted a broader view of the liability of a technology manufacturer in the Sony Betamax case, essentially a "substantial infringing uses occur means infringement by vendor" test, which was discredited and reversed in Sony, which adopted the "substantial noninfringing use possible means no infringement by vendor," almost the very opposite result. It is hard for me to understand why, when the 9th Circuit essentially brought back the same analysis in its Napster opinion that got "sent home" in Sony, that Judge Posner would so freely adopt it here. To be fair, he explains his reasoning very, very well -- I just don't find it persuasive in view of the law and its underlying policies -- contribution isn't about expanding copyright to permit technology regulation.
To me, the question isn't whether the technology is being used poorly -- even by most users -- if it is capable of a substantial noninfringing use -- in which case there should be NO liability for contribution. (To get a sense how far the Supreme Court went, there was survey evidence before the District Court showing that 50% of the Betamax users were doing some infringement.) The question should be whether the technology vendor was affirmatively and actively inducing others to engage in infringement, as was the case in Napster and, arguably, Aimster.
Time will tell. But until the Supreme Court gets to this, it looks like the Posner account of Napster will be the final word on this question of law. Note, however, that his remarks on identity protection as indicia of wrongdoing are very troubling -- one of these days, perhaps in a few more years, perhaps, if we don't have any more tall buildings hit by planes, we really need to affirmatively try to get the courts and the Congress focused on privacy again.
Re:That's what I needed (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole idea of "stealing" a public hotspot is stupid - if it's public, then your access to it isn't stealing. If it's private, it's got 128-bit WEP encryption and is closed - right?
It's like leaving the water on in your house, watching it flow out onto the street and then crying foul when people line up with buckets...
Re:Filesharing is great for the music industry (Score:1, Insightful)
The companies are losing crazy money right now because all those "performers" (in the sense that they perform as actual musicians) can't sell their overhyped albums because there are better ways to acquire the maybe one good song on it. And that song is NOT worth 15-17 dollars.
Here's another aspect of it all...look into interviews with long lasting bands that don't suck lately (read: Metallica). I mostly buy CDs of hard rock bands from the 70s or so. Zep, Rush, Stones, Who, etc. Most of the time when they're interviewed they're pretty cagey about the subject of mp3 sharing, but for the most part, they don't care, because their sales aren't affected nearly as much as the teen pop, 15 minutes of fame MTV "artists" who don't even write their own music.
What pisses off the RIAA guys is that that is the sad truth of it for them and they know it.
The other part of it killing them is that maybe ten years ago, if I wanted my own playable on-demand copy of Cheap Trick, I Want You To Want Me, from Live at the Budekon, I bought the CD. Now, I just download it. Right there the record company lost about a 10 out of 17 dollars in operating overhead. That's 10 dollars of lights, janitors and neo-nazi RIAA member executives that I just stole from them.
So now there's another whole market lost for them. Unless you're really into, why buy yesterday's music?
That's why their pissed. And just remember, we're not talking about "smart" corporations anyway. Time Warner is one of the biggest music distributors out there, and who did they align with? Yeah AOL, that's who.
Security Through Obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
Although it blocks users from browsing your files and blocks queries from known malicious IP's It would not stop the RIAA from downloading from you from a not yet known malicious IP, Proxy, wierd "Save the Music Industry" Campaingn where they pay you to hunt down P2P Users, ETC.
Basicially if they do a search for "St. Anger" on Kazaa, Download it, and verify that it is "St. Anger" they have an IP going to somewhere. And that IP now has a big red Bullseye on it whether it's a proxy, a user or whatever else that could obscure your idenity.
The only way to truthfully be anonymous is to be encrypted, swarmed and stored all over the place by hundreds of users like Freenet does it, and even that gives them an IP to paint a target on with the excuse that even though you dont know what your PC is sending thats no excuse to infringe. Although the courts would have to decide that.
suing 'single' users (Score:3, Insightful)
One file is just as 'illegal' as one thousand..
Only costs them a few pennies to send it out. Then prosecute for big bucks the people that don't obey the order.
Not much different then the old days of mass mailing US-mail Spam.. I bet they would eve get a bulk rate
Re:This isn't surprising. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
this is a nice start, but not the solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Then when the RIAA with their lawyers and their hounds and their warrants show up on the doorstep at SomeISP.com, SomeISP.com can shrug and say "Sorry, we don't know who was using those IPs at those times; we don't log that information. Oh and those IPs that you're curious about aren't unique to a single user from one hour to the next, either."
Although such an extravagant system is hardly required if ISPs will just...not keep logs of who has which IPs at what times. That right there is really all that's necessary in order to put a stop to the threat of the RIAA. If they've got no way to "lookup" your IP and "resolve" it to your name and address, they're up the creek without a paddle. heh. Unfortunately I think that this kind of tracking is required by law. =\
An intermediate proxy layer is probably required to protect peoples' identities while maintaining responsibility to the law. If no data were transferred directly from peer to peer, but all data passed through an anonymizing proxy service, then there would be no way to track individual IPs to individual users. The proxy service would have a range of IPs that it would block from using the service; mostly overseas numbers and government agencies. But the proxy service would have to be generically available for any level and type of data transfer on the internet, so nobody can say "That proxy network that soandso developed is just there to make piracy easier!"
To make an analogy, creating this proxy service is much like becoming a gun manufacturer. People will show up on your doorstep (the RIAA, their hounds, their lawyers) and proclaim loudly that you are irresponsible and you make only tools of destruction (destruction of their capitalistic heirarchy which dictates that they get boatloads of cash and the music creators themselves get jack). But when you refute their claims you need to make sure that you do so from a platform of freedom and independence, a platform of neutrality that doesn't advocate breaking the law, but one that does acknowledge that it may be possible for the law to be broken through the use of its products. Care must be taken to portray the proxy service as a simple anonymizing service without advocating any one single use or purpose. Smith & Wesson don't say that their guns are only good for killing people; but they do say that they make damn fine guns. It's all in the marketing and the picture you paint for people to see.
Re:That's what I needed (Score:5, Insightful)
If I lock my door on my house, you can still easily get in. That doesn't mean me not locking (or forgetting to lock) the door is inviting you to come in.
Re:This isn't surprising. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not going to kill this person, I'm going to pull a lever that rotates a gear that kicks a boot into a cow, making her angry enough to kill the stablehand.
Net result is the same, and the intent was the same.
Re:Security Through Obscurity (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong. They never will, because the RIAA is NOT going to target anybody who can mount an effective defence, therefore the issue will never get TO the courts for them to decide ANYTHING.
At least, if everything goes according to the RIAA's plan...
Re:Security Through Obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, some courts have decided that: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showo
From the decision, in relevant part: (emphasis added)
Small wonder this opinion is by Posner from the 7th Cir., known for being an industry goon. (He's from the Chicago school of 'screw the little guy' economists, as is Scalia, and many other jurists with sway.)
The point however is that merely encrypting files does not provide a defense. Likely, you'll still get sued, if you infringing use becomes large enough to attract one of the factory robot lawyers the RIAA is about to retain.
I would urge developers to read the 7th circuit opinion carefully. It lays out some tests for what a 'safe' p2p application can show to avoid liability. If others are interested, I'll follow up with a list of suggests for a bittorrent sister app I'm making that carefully follows the rules of the 7th circuit.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Jury nullification is very rare. It is certainly not something you can count on to say with 100% certainty that "the RIAA will *LOOSE*. And they know it."
With all due respect, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking.
This also isn't realistic. If they lose one at the trial court level, it isn't a binding precedent. (Particularly if the loss is due to jury nullification.) It isn't like they can't afford to file more suits. All they have to do is keep trying until they find a jury that actually follows the law (which shouldn't be that hard to do) and then ruin somebody. Then they will have their headlines and their head on a pike.
Anyone who thought they were safe after a single case of "jury nullification" would be an utter fool.
Re:this is a nice start, but not the solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
It would also make it difficult for the ISP to find out which user(s) are spamming, defacing other websites, or launching denial-of-service attacks. Anonymity may be a desirable goal for the user, but it's probably not so good from an ISP's point of view.