Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Kazaa-lite Shut Down 634

atari2600 writes "Finally it has happened. Zeropaid is reporting that the Kazaalite K++ project has been shutdown by Sharman Networks. The project, which had been set up to block spy and ad ware within the Kazaa Media Desktop Program has achieved notoriety within the P2p world through its simplistic approach and success in reverse engineering the Kazaa application."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kazaa-lite Shut Down

Comments Filter:
  • by Wigfield ( 730339 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:13PM (#7653499) Journal
    Sharman shutting down K++ for copyright infringement? Isn't that what the RIAA is trying to do to Sharman... I know, I know, sharman doesn't actually host illegal files on their site, but it seems their entire business model revolves around copying music illegally.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:15PM (#7653511)
    But Kazaa Lite IS copyright infringement. It's like somebody taking the linux kernel, modifying it, and posting it without source. Not everything shared on kazaa is illegal.
  • Well that sucks... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Little Grey ( 571460 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:18PM (#7653538)
    Guess it's time to start using mlMac and Poisoned on my Mac
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:18PM (#7653541)
    Sorry, there are no convenient music outlets available in my bedroom, at 11.30 p.m, on a Sunday evening.
  • by Wigfield ( 730339 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:21PM (#7653549) Journal
    Not everything shared on kazaa is illegal.

    Almost everything on kazaa is illegal. I challenge you to name the last time you saw something that was in the public domain or under a free license (GPL, FDL, BSD, etc.) If you pressure Sharman enough they will have to admit the main attraction of their program is to facilitate copyright infringement. Personally I don't like copyright as it stands one bit, but they are being rather hypocritical.
  • by NiKnight3 ( 532580 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:22PM (#7653551) Homepage
    Maybe except this one [apple.com] and this one [napster.com] and this one [buymusic.com] and this one [listen.com] and...
  • by DrLudicrous ( 607375 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:23PM (#7653559) Homepage
    The problem with your argument is that most people don't want to download all the songs on an album- they only want a few. To download 2 or 3 good songs off of an album at high quality (192kbps+) still takes less time than it would to get in your car and drive to the store. And it is also infinitely cheaper.

    And be it that it may that you are only interested in music, many other people do have other interests. I use kazaa k++ for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as finding beta patches to games or looking for humerous video clips.

    Why should people "just buy the factory CDs anyway"? Most of them are crap. They are a waste of money. The RIAA has screwed itself with its own corporate greed by constantly promoting artists that are without talent. If I want to show the artists that I enjoy what they do, I will go to a live performance. Most artists are not seeing any substantial income from their CD sales- that gets eaten up by the record companies for a bunch of bullshit fees and promotion costs. Bands make their money from touring- and the RIAA now wants a bigger piece of that pie too.

  • Re:curses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Joe Tie. ( 567096 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:24PM (#7653573)
    and i was just about to download it to get some songs i REALLY need.

    If you're to the point of REALLY NEEDING them, and not just wanting them, you could always go buy the cd.
  • by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:36PM (#7653644)
    I would gladly pay $10 for a good CD (i.e. one that has more than 2 decent songs on it) by a band that I like. I think what people have a problem with is paying almost $20 for a CD with maybe 1 or 2 songs they actually want to hear. As much as I dislike Wal-Mart and Best Buy, these stores have been holding down the price of most new music.
  • by Red Storm ( 4772 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:42PM (#7653669)
    What if the song you want is a special remix which isn't available in the stores? What if the album you want is from an artist who nobody sells and the label which origionaly released the song is not around anymore? Does going down to the store and shelling out $15 for a CD which cannot be purchased to support that artist hold water anymore? I feel this is the REAL tragady of P2P. Plus I live in the US, I happen to like Eurodance and other forms of music from Europe. However such music is not easy to find here especialy since CDNow was purchased by Amazon.

    Everyone talks about getting their music for free and whatnot. For me P2P was all about discovering new music. When I was on Napster back in the day my CD purchasing budget was about $50-$100 a month! I was getting new songs which *I* liked, not what some marketing department wanted me to listen to. Also as I mentioned earler, what about preserving music which cannot be found leagaly? P2P makes for a great medium for this!

    Damm u RIAA, Metalica and everyone else who was against P2P.
  • hmm.. wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by real_smiff ( 611054 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:45PM (#7653688)
    Flamebait probably but i'll bite, as the saying goes:

    Longer? depends how far you are from the shops, and how fast your net connection is. N/m whether the store *has* what you want!

    More expensive? haha.. one is free m8, or at least should be lower cost, if you're paying for the connection anyway or someone else is.

    Lower quality? you're using the wrong networks, or don't know how to use them right, or are an audiophile who thinks he can hear differences but can't ABX them.

    sorry to sound like an argumentative d*ck but the net *is* a better distribution method in general, for music.

  • by SlashdotLemming ( 640272 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:47PM (#7653698)
    The problem with your argument...

    The problem with his argument is that it goes against the Slashdot Hive approved opinion.

    You say that downloading a few songs is cheaper that buying the whole albumn. Ok, fine, so downloading is cheaper than buying. So is downloading wrong? Obviously, since you add that you only use P2P software for "legitimate" reasons. Downloading must be bad, and buying good, right? Well, no, don't buy because the artists suck and the RIAA takes most of the money anyway. RIAA sucks, fight the power, download songs!!
    Which songs do you download? The ones you like? But I thought the artists sucked?

    I guess people justify stealing from the artists by stealing more from the RIAA
  • by Josh Booth ( 588074 ) <joshbooth2000@nOSPAM.yahoo.com> on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:49PM (#7653703)
    I know I'm in the minority here, but I would rather support one kind of thievery (the record labels/RIAA) over another (Filesharing) if one actually benefits the artists. As it is now, filesharing benefits the artists only by advertising their music, while they still get a few nickels from CD sales. I do use Gtk-Gnutella mostly to download songs that I would either never buy in the first place (Bush's Glycerine, Devil Went Down To Georgia) or to sample music (I'm an AC/DC fan now).
  • by mutewinter ( 688449 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:51PM (#7653720)
    Alot of people don't seem to care about Kazaalite. To some degree I don't either; it certainly doesn't effect me. This does, however, set a very bad legal precident.

    Alot of the spyware out there is destructive. It can and does slow your computer down, mess with your system settings, and in some cases completely disable your computer. Perhaps if Kazaalite was making money off this (i think they might have been..maybe it was diet kazaa) it would be a slightly different matter. Regardless, users of their own computers should have the right to disable software which causes their computer to do things which they don't want it to. Hell, forget doing it for a profit. A car manufacturer can't prevent me from buying a modified or refurbished car from a private dealer.

    Alot of people out there want to pass consumer rights laws to combat the DMCA and other intrusive laws. This is not a good solution -- its only an eternal game of cat and mouse. These laws need to be repealed. Sure, let microsoft use copy-protection and other schemes for their xbox, but don't stop me, as the owner of that piece of equipment, from modifying it so that it does what *I* want it too.
  • I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:53PM (#7653730)
    I predict that the only consequences that this could have for Sherman's network are negative ones. Honestly, have the sharers with fast connections been using the proper, sherman client? Simply, NO! Can one really expect, after so long sans spyware, these advanced, high-speed users to begin to use their spyware-filled client? Simply, NO! These users will maintain the status quo by continuing to use their existing Kazaa-lite clients, or they won't share on the Kazaa network at all; either way, how does this help you, Sherman?
  • by AKnightCowboy ( 608632 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:57PM (#7653764)
    Bands make their money from touring- and the RIAA now wants a bigger piece of that pie too.

    Does anyone have any hard conclusive proof that this is true or is it just another rumor perpetuated along the same lines as the "640k out to be enough for anybody" Bill Gates quote?

    If bands didn't get any substantial income from CD sales, why would they work so hard to get signed? Could it be that the intangiable benefits of being a signed RIAA band far outweigh any monetary income they get from the CD sales?

    Would anyone go to their concerts if they weren't featured on Billboard's top 10 list? How many fans would they have if the only airplay they got was by begging a college radio station to play their demo tape?

    All the bands that make any significant revenue from touring are also some of the biggest names on the RIAA's artist list. Do you think that's just a coincidence? Record companies and CD sales are promotional tools for sure, but without them you're going to be playing an empty room in some dive bar in Kansas.

  • by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:02PM (#7653799) Journal
    I don't know about you, but none of the wal-marts's within a hundred miles of me are open past 11 nor do they open before 9.

    Mail-order companies also refuse to deliver there? What is this place, Antarctica? International Space Station? Los Angeles South Central?

    Especailly for people like me who like the smaller, less known bands that don't sell in big (if ANY) stores.

    A "smaller, less known band" is usually also harder to find at the p2p's.

    But for the artists that I like, I would rather pirate their CD and send them the $20 directly.

    Nice idea, but somehow everyone stops on the first half.
  • by K8Fan ( 37875 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:16PM (#7653873) Journal
    I've found that the time it takes to get good (192kbps+) versions of songs off of a complete album is much longer and expensive than simply shelling out 10 bucks for the CD at a music store.

    That's fine, assuming that everything you want is available for sale. My wife and I have several thousand CDs and an even larger number of LPs (remember those?).You'd be amazed at how many things that were issued on vinyl have never re-appeared on CD.

    During the "Golden Age" of file sharing we were in that group of people who were uploading far more tracks than we ever downloaded. And the vast majority of our uploads were tracks we had ripped from vinyl and cleaned up. Tracks like obscure Siouxsie Sioux EPs and b-sides. We were the first people to rip the "Will Powers" album.

    It's fine if you don't know what I'm talking about and it's also fine if you don't care. But the point is that there were a lot of people who wanted these tracks and the no way to get them. What are they supposed to do? For instance, it's the Xmas season. Labels release special tracks to radio stations - Warner Brothers' collection used to be called "Winter Warnerland" and had some really bizzare stuff. Fans want every track and every track simply isn't for sale.

  • Re:curses (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mr. Hankey ( 95668 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:20PM (#7653896) Homepage
    That's almost true. I have a large collection of music CDs, although I always mp3 them to play on my computer. I don't have a problem with buying music, domestic or import, although I do wonder about the prices sometimes. The artist gets their $0.12 share, whatever. The government gets more in tax on the sale.

    The only time I resort to a P2P application, or any other means for that matter, is when I simply can't find a song on a CD. There's a lot of music that you just can't buy here. It may be out of print, never released in the US and not easily imported, etc. If I can't buy it, then I'll acquire it.

    Is it wrong? Perhaps, perhaps not. Until there's a good alternative to finding ANY published song, which is A: free from the esoteric issues of regional licensing restrictions, and B: complete enough to find everything I'm looking for, I'd say it's not unreasonable to use a P2P application (or other available technology) to find them.

  • by armando_wall3 ( 728889 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:21PM (#7653905)

    C'mon, guys.... as the RIAA shuts down p2p networks and applications, new ones appear every now and then.

    Sherman is doing a similar thing, and won't be the exception.

    I guess we'll soon see Kazaa Ultra Lite++++.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:27PM (#7653943)
    So take a stand, and boycott it all. Don't even download it. Pick one:

    A> buy the album, listen to the music.

    B> don't buy the album, don't listen to the music.

    Anything other than those two options is screwing someone over. I love how all 'high and mighty' people get when they say 'screw the RIAA' but then download the latest Britney hit.

    "But wait!" says Sefirroth6969 (or another similarly clever handle), "I don't listen to that crap, I listen to *insert band name here*! They are just being screwed over by The Man!"

    Guess what? They didn't have to sign a contract. They did, and now they have to abide by those rules. If you aren't going to play the game, then stop whining at the players for free handouts.
  • by armando_wall3 ( 728889 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:36PM (#7653996)
    5.) Don't forget to run something like Spybot or Adaware right after uninstalling Kazaa.

  • by HawkingMattress ( 588824 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:49PM (#7654063)
    (And if you want to do them, maybe you need to move to a different Country? God bless Canada and the blank media tax; I don't mind paying a little bit on every CD-R for a music piracy license!)

    Ha ! Think so ?
    I don't know about Canada, but here in France we pay a tax on every cdrs, and IIRC on every storage device, HDD whatever (because everyone knows that if you buy a HDD or a CDR, it's to fill it with mp3s...)
    It'a quite stupid, but at least you'd think that since you've paid a tax because you copy medias it's now your right to do so...
    Not at all ! copying a cd to your friend is still illegal, file sharing is still illegal, and we hear all time on TV that "media producing companies" are complaining because we're nasty pirates who suck their money. Never mind the fact that on any CDR I buy (mostly for archiving raw sounds that I produced), I have to pay 5% (IIRC) more to compensate them.
    Still, we never heard them complaining so much...
  • by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:53PM (#7654096)
    God bless Canada and the blank media tax; I don't mind paying a little bit on every CD-R for a music piracy license!

    I do. We have a similar thing in the US. Every time you buy a blank audio tape, video tape, or DAT tape, Disney and others get a cut of the sale.

    Why should the producers of "Martin Luther King Speaks" have to pay Disney for the privilege of producing their own program?

  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:56PM (#7654115)
    I find the song. If I like it, I buy the album. If not, I delete the song.

    See the RIAA doesnt want you to sample tracks before you buy them because they want you to buy the cd to sample the track. This way no matter what they always get the sale. Now that the consumer has such an easy way to sample whole albums/track to decide where they like it or not RIAA is loosing money from you and me not buying the whole cd. They hate you and me for that. All of a sudden my cd purchase choices have gotten smarter and "I" save myself money by not spending $20 for a piece of plastic because most of the album sucks.

    Thats right RIAA "I" save money by pre listening to music from P2P.

    Anyways Im hung over so all ove the above might not make any sence once I reread it in a few hours.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2003 @02:27PM (#7654292)
    It was just a matter of time before Sharman decided to deal with KazaaLite. When your entire app is a plug-on to the real program, the main program can shake you off like a dog shakes off fleas. I'm not sure why everyone finds this so shocking as it was as predicable as the sunrise.

    Current versions of Kazaalite probably won't be good in the near future.

    Sharman will most likely change Kazaa to keep Kazaalite and other leeches (like giFT) off their network. Why go through all this copyright lawsuit effort if they aren't going to follow through? I'm just trying to read the writing on the wall.

    Won't all the Kazaalite nodes form their own separate network?

    Sorry. KazaaLite defaults the user to not being a supernode. No supernodes = no network.

    If the author of KazaaLite had spent more time writing his own p2p app, instead of leeching, hacking and destroying other p2p apps, maybe he wouldn't be left holding his knob in the wind.
  • by dissy ( 172727 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @02:33PM (#7654321)
    > You can smoke tobacco in a bong, but that dosen't mean that most bong owners are
    > smoking tobacco.

    Bongs are not illegal to own or buy either.
  • by poptones ( 653660 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @02:41PM (#7654360) Journal
    Tellyawhat: if you can tell me WHERE to send money I'll do it. It's not as if I haven't tried to find an address to send Russian rock star Linda a few of my American dollars to help fund her lifestyle (whatever it is). Sure, you can buy CDs from one or two places - but only her very most popular work, and I want them all. And the CDs that are for sale here through mail order come from a Russian importer who will not vouch for the pressing company - which means even if I DO buy their CDs odds are I'm not giving any money at all to Linda, but to some Mafia klan.

    Any idea how hard it is to find Sultana in the US? There's one mail order company I have found that has one of her CDs despite her allegedly being one of the more popular Turkish rap acts.

    And where do I send my money to buy a new copy of Bjork's "Telegram" (which I had on CD and lost and now have only the case it came in). That was a fan club release of which only a few hundred copies were ever distributed - so I guess I just never get to hear those songs again? How does that help the artist? How does Bjork (or her label) profit from my never being allowed again to listen to music from her that I once enjoyed?

    Siouxsie and Budgie took the initiative long ago and setup their own online label and they have been able to profit from it ever since. I have no qualms about shelling out $20 for one of their CDs because I know where most of that money is going and I've enjoyed their music for nearly 30 years now. There's a lot of other artists I'd love to send money to - Neil Young, Kate Bush, Linda, Sultana, Bjork (whose albums I have purchased in the past but, sadly, I have had to forego in the last release because of my commitment to boycott the RIAA) and Moloko.

    Is it my fault most of these artists either cannot put up personal web spaces because of record company contracts or they simply don't realize there may be profit in it for them?

    Even if it was, it ain't anymore. The net has been the best thing in the history of recorded music for the dedicated music fan. It's too bad it's taking so long for the artists to catch up with that revolution... but they will. Just as soon as their old contracts run out.

  • by sillybilly ( 668960 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @03:25PM (#7654603)
    I think the length of copyright term has gotten out of hand: it was 70 years in the US for corporates up to around 2000, but now it's 90 years.In the first time in history nothing of corporate authorship is passing into public domain til 2020 - including Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and suck cliche logos created around 1930, you still owe royalty to Disney if you wanna press them on tshirts. And then, in 2020, watch them lobby Congress to extend it even more. Originally, back in 1790s when the Founding Fathers created copyright law, it was for a 14 years term. 14 years when news travelled slow and it took forever to print and distribute intellectual creations. These days a fair copyright seems to be something like 5 years to me. What's your opinion? So new songs and movies you would have to buy, in the strictest sense of property, just so that the artists have a contractual incentive to create new songs. Also you'd buy directly from the artist through some sites like ebay, cutting out the parasites like RIAA who pretty much do nothing except suck both the artist's and cosumers's blood like mosquitos, and don't contribute anything valuable. Actually they do contribute something valuable, distribution and marketing is hard work just like any, but it should have a fair price tag, on the lines of 95cents of a dollar going to the artist, and 5cents to the distributors, and not the other way around. When musicians and book writers make the most money off their creations, and distribution sites compete for the artist's favors, not the other way around, that's when intellectual creations will really spur.
    And thus P2P would be a living, vibrating creation, in 2003 sharing songs and movies created before 1998 - I think that's a fair tradeoff. If you want something newer, go the the site like ebay, and purchase the songs for a buck a piece, directly from the artists.
  • Re:thats one way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnu-generation-one ( 717590 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @03:28PM (#7654624) Homepage
    or slashdot the server

    Slashdotting is just one of the reasons that P2P is a useful part of the internet, in addition to HTTP. The bandwidth is bourne by the people receiving the content, and the bandwidth increases the more people are requesting something. It's a pretty sensible model, and scales very well indeed.

    Try setting up a server to stream video to people. Big-Brother spent millions on a server farm, with *-loads of bandwidth, all of which they paid for themselves. Do that with P2P, and all you need is a node and some DSL.

    Maybe people don't realise the real gains to the internet when they whine about P2P as being some sort of illicit activity...
  • by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @04:13PM (#7654833)
    When do you hear wide playing of so-called "B" sides? All you hear are what the companies consider the top 3-4 songs at most to promote the album. If that's all people hear, then that's all people want.

  • by emilpop ( 612532 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @04:39PM (#7654947)
    The rules can be changed dude! RIAA aren't gods. If people don't like the rules anymore than a process of changing the rules starts, and that's what happens now. I bet you never liked history.
  • Re:thats one way (Score:1, Insightful)

    by xQx ( 5744 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @05:15PM (#7655176)
    I haven't heard about visual artists complaining about photocopiers.

    Art was never a career. Get over it.

    I haven't seen a successful busker who's playing a CD and expecting money. People need to *WORK* for their money. .. if you're a musician, that means concerts, or selling out into advertising.

    Did ford get sued by the horse and cart companies?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2003 @05:45PM (#7655316)
    I've found that when I buy CD's a very small portion of the money goes to the artist. Since my primary objective in buying a CD would be to support that artist, it doesn't make sense for me to purchase a CD.

    When you add to that the fact that the RIAA is a very political entity; a political entity which has been instrumental in bringing about legislation which I vehemently oppose, it makes it quite clear that I cannot buy CD's from bands represented by an RIAA label.

    The RIAA has gotten into politics. They've gotten into my life. This is the result. It's not about how easy it is to get an mp3 for me anymore. It's a matter of principle. And on that principle I will happily sacrifice quality and time to avoid funding and supporting a political entity which I do not agree with.

    Most of the bands I listen to support taping of their live shows 100%. The rest of them are either dead or rich beyond belief and really won't feel any pain if I don't buy my copy of Forty Licks.
    Unless your civil liberties and freedom mean nothing, you should not buy the factory CDs.

    Show the artists that you enjoy what they do by buying some merchandise from them at a show or off their website, and then sending them a letter or email explaining that you are a fan, and that you can't buy their CD for political reasons, but that you bought some of their stuff at a concert or off their site to show your support.
  • Windows Media? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BSDKaffee ( 729432 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @06:13PM (#7655479)
    My God, as a FreeBSD user I think I'd have a heart attack if all these companies started putting their online music into Windows Media format and DRM to boot. I think I speak for most if not all of the Linux and BSD users out there too. Anyway, think about it -- you're getting a "CD" that is compressed in a lossy format by about 13 times over. That is not worth 10 bucks. If you take quality into account, a $15 CD in that format is worth only $1.15.
  • by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @06:26PM (#7655560)
    If anyone can start mirroring it, or even hacking it to keep it up to date as though the project never quit, this official "shutdown" won't even matter.
  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @06:29PM (#7655574) Homepage
    ...when we'll see the first network (that I'd know of anyway) that'll use "friends" that'll route the content. Basicly, you send out requests looking for a friend of a friends of a friend that has what you seek, and it'll get routed through them.

    Yes, it would slow the network speed to about 1/nth, where n is the average number of people you have to route through. However, n needn't be very large in practice. As has been shown with the socalled "small world" network theory, each person needs few outside links to make n small. And online, that is easier than ever.

    Basicly, I'd think it would be most useful if each node kept a small search database (e.g. the share lists of all their direct friends), and if not found, pass the request on. Would make for a bit more transfers, but a (zipped) metadata file is trivially small compared to an mp3 or divx rip. Think it'd be more efficient than searching local node only. It would also give you a good list of files you could browse where transfers should be fast (direct P2P), which is always nice.

    The advantages would be great: No central point of attack. No way to "scan" the network. Your identity is only revealed to your friends, who already know you. Because I know many people do not appriciate opening up their files to the entire Internet. However, they'd have no problem sharing with friends and family.

    Also, your bandwidth goes to someone "close" to you. (Priority should probably be given to closer friends, both because of less links involved (more efficient) and because they're friends per se).

    I think that'd be a welcome addition to the current crop of P2P nets, not to replace the current P2P nets but rather to replace the direct IRC/ICQ/MSN/FTP/whatever transfers. I definately think there's a market here for all those that have been scared off more traditional P2P nets.

    Kjella
  • Re:thats one way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @07:24PM (#7655926) Homepage
    gnu-generation-one writes:
    "Of course, you can still get the kazzaalite application from any of the P2P networks, including Kazaa."

    That will work until Kazaa does something to the protocol or client that makes K++ no longer work. This will happen within a week, I predict.
  • Re:thats one way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blincoln ( 592401 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @08:31PM (#7656299) Homepage Journal
    Art was never a career. Get over it.

    Programming in the United States was never a career. Get over it and find something else to do now that it's being outsourced to other countries where people work for less.

    People need to *WORK* for their money. .. if you're a musician, that means concerts, or selling out into advertising.

    Yes, because doing composition in a studio for hundreds of hours isn't work, or anything.

    Did ford get sued by the horse and cart companies?

    That is an incredibly poor analogy. Ford produced a replacement for an old type of transportation. P2P apps don't make music on their own.

    If you don't mind listening to 100% machine-generated music, then don't worry about supporting artists. If you want to hear original music, they need to get paid.
  • Re:thats one way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2003 @08:46PM (#7656385)
    Multicasting fits the "old" inconvenient broadcast model where you tune into channels at a specific times to get the content you want. P2P is much more in the spirt of the web model where the users pull content when they want it.

    It's also very unlikely that 2 users on the same subnet are going to want the same MP3 at the same time, which removes the efficiency argument.

    PS: mentioning IP multicasting is guaranteed karma -- nothing like the crazy, unimplemented wonder technology of the future, even when it's totally dopey.
  • by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @09:31PM (#7656595) Journal
    The interfaces could use some polishing (i like giFTcurs the best), but I think gift has a tremendous amount of potential.

    The potential being a fine from the RIAA.
  • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @10:24PM (#7656845)
    There are still some artists who produce albums as an artistic whole, not just a bunch of singles, but as a complete artistic statement. The fear is that if the per song market becomes dominent, that the art of albums will consequently suffer.

    The "single song" market has always dominated the market. With the demise of vinyl, it just became hard to buy single songs, as the music companies only offered most music as part of a bundle, i.e. an album padded out with what have been B-sides.

    The "concept album", (complete artistic statement) is a relatively recent format (except for classical music, of course). Up to the LP, most music was produced in singles, 10" 78 rpm, that lasted about 4 minutes, a single song per side. The 33rpm 12" LP "album", total about 45 mins, as its name suggests, was simply a compilation of singles. As by then radio was hugely important in the promotion of music there was little interest in extending the units pop music was produced in beyond the 3-4 minutes radio was used to. And the 45rpm single reinforced that.

  • Re:thats one way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unixbob ( 523657 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @04:24AM (#7658047)
    The RIAA aren't really supporting 'artists' though. They are protecting the revenues of large corporates. Record producers and managers get significantly more money than most of the young popstars today. Britney Spears is an attarctive woman who can sing. But she doesn't write her own songs and she isn't singing about experiances real to her. She isn't making original music. Popstars (who create the majority of product the RIAA is trying to protect) aren't artists, they are performers.
  • Oh, but if you read my post closely, you would see that I would RATHER... never said I have. Well, I have but because I knew or met the band - so that really doesn't count for these . But if there was a way to contact Linkin Park and get the money to them somehow without it being pocketed by some temp worker hired to sort their mail, then I would. My problem is not with buying the CD... My problem lies in funding the greed and ego-centric selfishness of organizations like the RIAA. I don't buy this bullshit they give where you have to support the artist because an artist's income is less than 10% from their CD sales. I use my insignificand and mute voice to challenge them to do as they say... But nobody seems to realize that - you are all too busy leeching the free music because you don't want to pay and use the RIAA as the excuse. I do pay - when I can... but I don't pay WHO I can... I could buy every CD with every song I have tomorrow if I HAD to, but it would take the same act of God to get me to do that as it would to make the RIAA die and realize what retarded selfish assholes they are. And yes, when a company makes it a good offer for all sides (EG Universal lowering the prices of their CD's while raising the percentage given to the artist - I bought the 8 alblums they publish that I like.

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Working...