FOSS Application Under Attack by Makers of KaZaa 300
Famatra writes "A story
from Zeropaid indicates that maker of
KaZaA, Sharman Networks, has sent a Cease
and Desist Letter to the maker of KCEasy because it interoperates with their
FastTrack network. The creator of KCeasy says on the
KCEasy website "I feel that inclusion of
FastTrack access with KCeasy is not worth a legal battle between Sharman and
myself". A similar issue was covered by the Slashdot story
Fight On Blizzard Vs. Bnetd Case on the right to reverse engineer to create
an interoperable network. Reverse engineering to be another on the list of
rights that have fallen by the wayside?"
Someone failed Sesame Street (Score:4, Informative)
Not only that, bnetd allowed people to bypass blizzard's CD-key check, which was bad sauce. So this guy's inclusion of FastTrack operability is allowing people to steal the chance to steal software/music? And what about KaZaA-lite? This makes my brain hurt.
Reverse-engineering may have fallen by the wayside, but it has next to nothing to do with f'n bnetd. Submitter must be applying to be a
Re:Someone failed Sesame Street (Score:2, Insightful)
Skipping CD-key checks: Already possible with TCP/IP games, you just can't get onto Battle.net itself. With bnetd, you still can't get onto Battle.net itself. Ergo, you aren't 'beating' the copy protection at all.
Tell me what's SO BAD about emulating the Battle.net service? Game pirates were already playing TCP/IP games and still are.
This is reverse engineering for interoperability. Easy as that. Tell me what about it isn't. Really.
Re:Someone failed Sesame Street (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Someone failed Sesame Street (Score:2)
Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue at question here is not whether or not it is legal to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and create an interoperable network, but rather the right to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and provide unlicensed access to the existing network. A subtle, but important distinction.
To draw an analogy, if I create a network of systems that does something, then (as I understand it) it is perfectly legal for you to reverse engineer my methodology and create a competing network that works in a similar way (within the constraints of patents, of course... and the act of reverse engineering something legally is a fairly complex one.) However, it would NOT (nessesarily, depending on the access license for my network) be legal for you to reverse-engineer an unlicensed client that accesses my network. In other words, it's not the act of reverse engineering that's illegal, but rather connecting your client to MY network.
However, in the case of a pure P2P system, I'm not sure that argument will hold up. This would have been an interesting one to watch. Too bad KCEasy backed down so easily.
Also, to be clear, I don't consider reverse engineering to be "a right" as the poster does. Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a right. Free speech is a right. Free press is a right. Reverse engineering (within certain constraints) is simply legal.
--- JRJ
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:2)
Or how about:
Accessing a MS Terminal Server machine using rdesktop with the intent of not paying for the license to do so.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, to be clear, I don't consider reverse engineering to be "a right" as the poster does. Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a right. Free speech is a right. Free press is a right. Reverse engineering (within certain constraints) is simply legal
I disagree, but then I take a very different view of the Constitution than most people. I believe that the "Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" clause is an express grant of authority to Congress to limit the rights of individuals to copy certain things. Note my terminology--I believe the rights pre-existed the Constitution. In other words, you have the right to reverse engineer someone's design unless the Constitution allows Congress (or the states, but this interplay is more complicated and, since we're talking about federal law here, I'm going to ignore it) to take that right away. Congress has not done so, even under the DMCA, and it might be beyond their authority (not that the current Court seems to think that authority has limits, but you never know).
You're right, this isn't Free Speech or an explicit reserveration of power to the people. Instead, I would argue that this is one of the rights we the people have always had, did not give up at the formation of the Republic, and is perpetually preserved under the 9th Amendment.
That said, I think you're also right about the reverse engineering not being the problem in this case, rather the unauthorized network usage.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
And, since Kazaa is P2P as you said, are any Kazaa owned servers involved in this? Or are they saying "you can't access other peoples computers using our protocol"? (I have no idea since I don't use Kazaa or IM)
Unless Kazaa owns the machines and the network, all they have is a program that lets computers talk to one another.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of Kazaa, there isn't even a central server there. The protocol was reversed engineered, and used to connect to other client machines. I'm not sure if Sharman Networks really has a say in who can connect to other user's machines. I doubt KCEasy really has anything to worry about technology-wise. They do have to worry that Sharman probably has a whole lot more money to throw at lawyers though. I imagine this has more to do with why KCEasy backed down than the actual merits of any lawsuit.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
It is just finding a node to connect to that is hard to do without centralization, and as I recall, the client comes with a list of IPs to try first. If for some reason none of those IPs are running Kazaa, it starts scanning the 24.* domain (the cable inter
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think they have a right to prevent anyone from making or distributing a compatible client.
Here's the kicker; I don't think they have a right to prevent people from using a compatible client to connect to instances of the client they provide.
The question is, what is "their network?" Is it anything other than a bunch of people running their P2P software on the public Internet? If so, I think they have no rights at all.
Please note that this is my analysis of the ethics involved, not my analysis of the laws involved.
-Peter
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reverse engineering for the sake of interoperability is a (supposedly) protected activity.
Nonetheless if they want to prevent people from connecting, they need to use some sort of authentication. Using another client might break the use agreement for the server, but if you can connect to the server without agreeing to a license (which you can, far as I can tell) then they really should not have any leg to stand on.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
But, by centralizing authentication, then they lose the defense of "We just make the software. We can't police how it's used." They fall into the same hole Napster did. Since the authorities would know who was running the software, they could subpoena records from the Kazaa makers to prosecute file traders.
Actually, it would. (Score:2)
The same right was explicitly upheld in the DMCA (Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201f). So it should be 100% legal. Not that it seems that way, but anyway. What may be ille
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why they are allowed to continue in business, and that is why they are not liable for any copyright infringement that takes place on the network.
The only possible basis therefore for preventing other people from writing software that can connect to the same third party networks that their software connects to is patent infringement.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
US Constitution, Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
(Yes, I understand if you are not in the US - but since so much of these rights issues crop up in the US, I think it applies).
But, that's beside the point. Really, I can't see how reverse-engineering could be forbidden by copyright AT ALL. I can see patents forbidding reverse engineering (which is another issue), but copyright / DMCA doesn't even apply.
To anyone designing networks:
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:2)
If you look at statutory copyright law, e.g. the UK CDPA 1988, you will see that it is "a right". So if you believe something that's different to the reality of the law (and the cases that have been decided upon it), then good luck to you, and say hello to the fairies for me.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:2)
There is no right to make a profit, even in a capitalist economy. The recognition of a "right" to profit equals merchantilism.
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:3)
And then you have those of us who don't even know what an analogy is...
Good analogy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good analogy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, when I'm sharing stuff on my P2P client, I (as sharer) don't care if whoever gets it is using Kazaa, KCEasy, Morpheus or whatnot. I'm providing the content and the bandwidth and I don't appreciate Sharman telling me who can talk to me and get it and who can't.
Re:Good analogy? (Score:2)
If they did it without stealing my money, it'd be great, especially if they charged less than the average rate for transactions, say 50 cents.
Now, if you're talking about someone connecting to the network and using a copy of my card to take money out of my account, there is a whole seperate set of laws that appl
KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a bit suprised that the KCEasy authors have complied with the cease-and-desist this easily, since the above statement is not really true.
KCEasy is simply a front-end. KCEasy makes use of giFT [sourceforge.net], which is an interface program, connecting one or more front-ends to one or more protocol plug-ins. giFT then in turn makes use of the giFT-FastTrack [berlios.de] plugin which actually communicates on the FastTrack network.
Anway, those of you using KCEasy might want to look into some of the other giFT front-ends, I don't know of any others for windows offhand but I'm guessing they are out there.
Googling for giFTcurs, appolon, giftui will bring up some for *NIX.
Re:KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:5, Informative)
KCEasy may be just a front-end, but it is a front-end developed by one of the guys heavily involved in reverse-engineering the KaZaA encryption algorithms (eg, /src/crypt/enc_type_*.c) for the giFT-fasttrack plug-in: mkern.
See:
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gift-faMaybe the KaZaA people are miffed at his reverse-engineering ways and chose to attack here rather than at the gift-fasttrack plug-in level?
Re:KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:2, Informative)
KCEasy bundles all of giFT and makes it much easier to get online using OpenFT, Gnutella, and up until a few days ago FastTrack. I don't know of any other Windows client that made it as easy as installing the program and everything works like a charm out of the package. It took me about 15 minutes to setup Apollon in Linux, and I never did figure out giFToxic.
I believe KCEasy is open sourced, so it wouldn't be that hard to create a modified version that has FastTrack support and was distributed via Gnut
Re:KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:2)
The KCEasy site still links to the old version, 0.11, which includes the Fastrack plugin. It runs fine on Windows XP and works with Fastrack (Kazaa), Gnutella, and OpenFT.
KCEasy v0.11 with Fastrack Goodness [sourceforge.net]
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Re:KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:2)
I'm not sure how far they'd want to go in helping the users find documentation on gift-fasttrack though. Maybe if they had a forum on their website, they could let the users supply that information too.
Re:KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:2)
Latest threat to P2P comes from within (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps the best example is their aquisition of patent #5,978,791 [uspto.gov], filed in 1997, which claims to cover the retrieval of a file across a network using a hash of the file's contents.
Set aside, for a moment, that this technique is completley obvious and has been around for decades (the earliest reference I can find is the Xanadu project from the early 90s - but I haven't looked very hard), and consider the fact that these guys could use this patent to effectively shut down almost anyone that comes up with a P2P app that doesn't have the funding to fight them in court (since most if not all modern P2P apps use this technique).
The bottom line is that companies such as Brilliant Digital Entertainment (the same nice people that were behind the adware that Kazaa is now famous for) are almost as much a threat to P2P as the better known people everybody loves to hate [riaa.org].
If anyone is interested, here [slashdot.org] is a more detailed article I wrote on the subject.
But Kazaa is such a reputable organization, WTF?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, that was kind of flamebaitty, sorry. But... (Score:2)
Just because people don't like the RIAA doesn't make Kazaa good.
One more reason to... (Score:2)
BTW, I use Poisoned [gottsilla.net], a good giFT front-end for OS X.
Here [sourceforge.net] is a list of the most popular giFT front-ends.
Excellent Point (Score:2)
Excellent point you made: We need to look at the big picture of these companies using patents to stifle P2P progress.
The Public Patent Foundation [pubpat.org] and the EFF (Patent) [eff.org] are starting campaigns (Story here [internetwk.com]) to invalidate bogus patents like the one here, #5,978,791 [uspto.gov] , you mentioned. Time to donate your money to these organizations (or your time with letters, and email to inform the public if you cannot afford it) to curb corporate threats to technological innovation.
I think we all recognize (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think we all recognize (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/09/24/kaza
This coincided with the time Sharman cracked down on Kazaa Lite. I think they have to continue to crack down on unauthorized clients if they want to have a leg to stand on in court.
reverse engineering a right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:reverse engineering a right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is a recent bit of news on the topic:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,390206
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-23
The most famous case of reverse engineering was Compaq developing a BIOS for it's IBM PC clone.
Re:reverse engineering a right? (Score:4, Informative)
The law in the USA is quite different in this respect and it could be that you'll be fried when attempting such a thing there. (Jon Johansen was acquitted in Norway for DeCSS, while those in the US that only linked to it were convicted.)
IANAL, if you want to try this at home see one (a lawyer) first.
Re:reverse engineering a right? (Score:2)
i'm thinking calling it a 'right' is still a bit of a stretch tho. =)
Re:reverse engineering a right? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Kazaa Lite Resurrection (Score:3, Informative)
http://mxp2.free.fr/P2P/KLR007.exe
Re:Kazaa Lite Resurrection (Score:2)
Re:Kazaa Lite Resurrection (Score:2)
Re:Kazaa Lite Resurrection (Score:2)
You know it's a dark day when.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You know it's a dark day when.. (Score:2, Funny)
Uhh, how can Sharman sue you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reverse engineering and open source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reverse engineering and open source (Score:3, Informative)
Putting "the genie back in the bottle" is not something the patent holder is requried to do, it's simply a practical measure, but that's where the lawsuits come in.</IANAL>
Re:Reverse engineering and open source (Score:3, Informative)
(Disclaimer: This only applies when the patent process works the way it was intended . . . the silly patents of late may not apply)
Re:Reverse engineering and open source (Score:2)
No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all. If you create something and patent it, I can read the patent to find out how it works. Why would I bother reverse-engineering it? Why would you care if I did, given that I would only learn the information that's already publicly available for free in the patent?
Haven't we seen similar issues before? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Kazaa is fighting the same sort of thing for the same sort of reason except that in the case of chat, one must connect to the central servers of the chat netowrk. Can Kazaa really claim ownership-like rights to a network that doesn't depend on their servers for functionality? It would seem that Kazaa has created a Frankenstein monster . . . that perhaps they cannot wholly control . . .
giftd goes too... (Score:3, Informative)
If this right existed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't that be lovely?
Re:If this right existed... (Score:3, Insightful)
If this right existed, then people would be able to require payment for access to pornography sites; folks would be permitted to ban specific IPs, and groups of IPs, from their sites; and Slashdot would be able to have subscriber-specific content. Wait, they can? Shit.
Oh, no! (Score:2, Funny)
I know it's not gone for good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I know it's not gone for good... (Score:2)
This is more along the lines of somebody making walkie-talkies and then saying that nobody else can make a compatible walkie-talkie.
Re:I know it's not gone for good... (Score:2)
Kazaa owns the ethernet running into my computer? If not, then how can they claim it is theirs? It consists of neither their equipment nor their content. Writing the program doesn't magically make the network belong to them any more than the webservers all belong to Mozilla, Opera, lynx, or Microsoft.
Yes. WE have lost rights... (Score:3, Insightful)
We loose rights when copyrights are extended indefinately.
Even when they fail to purchase such legislation, we loose our rights when we don't have the resources to fight them in court.
The courtsystem is extremely weighted in favour of the party with the most money.
Do I have a solution? No. But the problem exists.
Re:Yes. WE have lost rights... (Score:2)
I wish I could use linux at work. Konqueror's spell checking feature is wornderful.
Gray area (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont think "Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?" is a valid concern here, because the main issue seems to be that KCeasy interacts with SN servers, in a way that SN has not authorised or granted consent to. If KCeasy produced a fully seperate network, that simply used the FastTrack protocol, then my view would be different, but it doesnt, so it isnt. KCeasy is using the FastTrack network and Sharman Networks servers without consent, simple really.
Bogus comparison (Score:2)
KCEasy, on the other hand, was providing a way to use Kazaa's network.
It seems to me that is a major difference. Bnetd is basically competing with Blizzard, and reverse engineering to compete is (or should be) fine. KCEasy is basically providing a way to freeload off of Kazaa. I don't see how they should have a right to do that.
Reverse Engineering . . . legal (Score:4, Informative)
There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws. For example, it is not a violation of trade secret law to analyze (or "reverse engineer") any lawfully obtained product and determine its trade secret.
EXAMPLE
XCEL glue is comprised of a trade secret protected formula. Phil, a chemist, analyzes the contents of XCEL glue, determines its composition and recreates the formula. Phil can legally use this information to make and sell his own glue.
Re:Reverse Engineering . . . legal (Score:2)
Don't most EULAs (in this case I guess an AUP for the case of Sharman, and the essence of the DMCA) specifically say "...you may not reverse-engineer, disassemble..."? Does what you're saying imply that the EULA lawyers/corps are trying to write their own law, as it were, and attemp
Re:Reverse Engineering . . . legal (Score:2)
If it is encrypted one can reverse engineers it by replicating the functionality with respect to inputs and outputs. If Sharman did not include any attempt to protect their copyrighted work (such as encryption), then the DMCA would not apply (though other laws might
Re:Reverse Engineering . . . legal (Score:2)
If I want to use it as a thickening agent in my food and it kills me, it's not illegal (suicide laws aside), but it's certainly stupid.
The directions in my car say I should shift every 2500 rpm or so, but if I run it up to 4000 all I'm doing
Trade Secret not Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind this applies to trade secrets, not patents. In order to have a trade secret, you cannot publish it. i.e. A Trade Secret cannot be a patent because you would have to disclose, in this case, the formula.
If the formula for XCEL were patented, There wo
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Ford has threatened to sue these companies, alleging that they reverse-engineered key parts of ROAD, including the maximum width of allowable vehicles, and the use of round "wheels" for efficient travel on ROAD networks.
too bad for Kazaa (Score:3, Informative)
Most laws on copyright (e.g. in the UK the CDPA 1988) have _actual_ statutory provisions that allow reverse engineering for interoperability purposes. Of course, as was seen with IM systems, this rapidly becomes an arms race. Kazaa may have sent a C&D, but my strong belief is that it would not be enforceable.
The question is whether the guy who received it understands his rights or is just going to let himself be brow-beat.
What's so hard to understand? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:What's so hard to understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Get up off their network, you didn't have permission to be accessing with and/or generating traffic on it.
What is their "network"? Does it mean connecting to Sharman's servers? No, this is P2P, there are no servers. Does it use their bandwidth? No, the bandwidth is the users'. The "network" is just the collective set of all the Kazaa clients out there that people are using. So what if someone wants to write a program that's compatible with those clients? Is Apache evil because it's compatible with
Wouldn't it be funny if... (Score:2, Troll)
Wouldn't it be funny if KCEasy was a shell company for the **AA, and when Sharman showed up in court to face them...
It is not just funny, it is a good idea (Score:2)
Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
All rights that are not defended will fall by the wayside.
Intimidation (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not technically adept enough to argue the qualities of the app itself, but I think it's interesting to note that a couple of posters have mentioned that KCEasy folded easily.
The above is what concerns me. I don't know jack about German law, but I think it's sad that we are again seeing that the mere threat of possible legal action is an effective deterrent.
Today's Davids will never even get a shot at their Goliaths if they can't even afford the price of admission to the arena.
The Dalai Llama
...yeah, I know they fought in an open field...whatever...
At the end of the post (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At the end of the post (Score:2)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_fact
Re:At the end of the post (Score:2)
Re:At the end of the post (Score:2)
Oh well, (Score:2)
Reverse Engineering is legal, but not access (Score:5, Informative)
As for intruding on a private network, the network is composed primarily of users, if I'm not mistaken. Still, companies like E-bay have been successful in using trespass (to chattles) to keep people off their servers if they make it clear that they don't want them on there.
Re:Reverse Engineering is legal, but not access (Score:2)
The DMCA splits the rights into two "right to access" and "right to copy"; you need to be an authorised user to have a "right to access" a work before you can then have any other rights, such as the "right to copy".
In terms of reverse engineering, at least in the UK under the CDPA 1988, it only applies if you are already a legitimate right holder of the work in question. In other words, you cannot steal a program and reverse engineer it, but you can purchase and reverse engineer. Also, in the UK, the provi
Have the courts ever ruled on something like this? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the trade secret/network can be reverse engineered and this is legal and interoperating causes no impact on Kazaa's equipment etc., does Kazaa have the right to prevent other clients from using what is only the same protocol and network standards which were legally reverse engineered?
My gut feeling is no . . . but I wonder if the courts have already ruled on this . . .
Memberships, not technology under hostage. (Score:3, Insightful)
Reverse Engineering... (Score:2, Insightful)
If everyone had the right to stop reverse engineering of their products, Ford should be allowed to send cease and desist letters to anyone who makes cars. Because building interoperable parts, or better cars infringes on their rights. Besides, who needs a Ferrari anyway?
Why just KCEasy? (Score:2)
Anyway, think that is a mistake doing that, even leaving the "free speech" argumentation on a side. More clients means more ways to access means more people that is at the very least aware of them, and a far richer network. Of course, they could had seen that a dangerous percent of the clients of that networks weren't the
Playground Bullies (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's true reverse engineering, then this is just a bully threatening a weakling on the digital playground.
Fork KCeasy then wait? (Score:3, Informative)
"I feel that inclusion of FastTrack access with KCeasy is not worth a legal battle between Sharman and myself"
Couldn't someone, who is willing to fight Sharman Networks, fork KCeasy [sourceforge.net] and then await another letter? Also if you want, you can still access the fasttrack network with a previous version here (0.11 [sourceforge.net]) I think it was 0.12 [sourceforge.net] that was nerfed.
Blizzard is in the right (Score:2)
BnetD allows you to play without a CDKEY.
In fact thats the only thing good about bnetd is stealing Blizzard games.
Blizzard is one of the few companies that makes quality video games anymore. I don't see why people are up in arms against them.
Re:*rights*??? (Score:2)
Re:*rights*??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
i'm tired of all these folks making up "rights" that don't exist.
And I'm tired of people thinking we don't have rights just because they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution limits the rights of the government, it doesn't grant the people rights. We have them to begin with.
Re:*rights*??? (Score:2, Interesting)
One has to look no further than our own Decleraion of Indepence to see that we are granted, "Ceritan unalienable rights...". Just because these rights are not set out in stone, does not mean they do not exsist, infact, I would prefer they where not spelled out in stone, least some over zealous prosoctor would attempt to charge me with crime on am over drawn technicality.
Re:*rights*??? (Score:2)
I'm tired of clueless fools without the intestinal iortitude to post their gripe without logging in. Nice abuse of AC posting there buddy.
Without reverse engineering you would NOT have the cheap PC's you have today, you certianly would not be driving the car you have and most certianly wouldn't be watching that TV you have.
reverse engineering has been common place in industry for eons. and used by clever people for centuries before that...
Re:*rights*??? (Score:2)
Re:Idiotic Ending Lines (Score:2)
Re:seems cut and dry... (Score:2, Insightful)