Slashdot Log In
Kazaa Founder Wants Us To Find "Legitimate" Files
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Oct 28, 2008 07:33 AM
from the how-very-thoughtful-to-take-notice dept.
from the how-very-thoughtful-to-take-notice dept.
Just because I'm an writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Kevin Bermeister and Michael Speck have been developing technology to return search results on file sharing programs that point to pay-for content from the copyright holders. The article reports that there are trials planned for Australian ISPs, with interest from elsewhere on the globe."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
kill it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:kill it (Score:4, Insightful)
Kill what? Kazaa? Nah. It still has a useful purpose, even as "only" the second most-popular method of filesharing.
>>>When an ISP's customers use a file sharing program such as LimeWire to search for a pirated music track, they are instead presented with a list of search results containing legitimate versions of the song and are given the opportunity to buy it instantly.
>>>
I think this is a good solution. Not that I would buy the song, since I prefer uncompressed CDs, but still it's a good way to remind people that there are legal methods of obtaining entertainment. An even better idea would be links to free websites. If for example someone searches "Heroes", they would be directed to either nbc.com or hulu.com where the show is available for free (but legal) viewing.
Parent
Re:kill it (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was Limewire's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting link.
To be clearer, APC reported that 25% of mp3 downloads via Limewire contain malware of some description.
Boxes with Limewire installs that I've seen are always infected. Mind you, people that download with Limewire also visit infected sites anyway.
A new host file and tools from Malwarebytes helps greatly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you serious? A good solution? The ISP not just throttling my traffic when I use a P2P program, but actually modifying it, to show not what the application I'm running should show me, but something they think I ought to see. That's worse than DRM, that's worse than most things they've come up with so far. This isn't a creative solution, it's a a fucking man-in-the-middle attack. And all of it on a very dodgy definition of illegality. Downloading is not illegal (just making the material available) so sea
Nothing is available on hulu... (Score:2)
If you aren't American, so they can go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
As it should be.
Why should American advertisers subsidize the free shows for Europeans? For Example: It's not as if you can go buy Scott paper towels after you see the online ad, so why should Scott pay for European entertainment? That's why Scott and other advertisers strictly limit access to Americans-only.
And vice-versa. I can't watch BBC or other European shows online, because I can't buy European products.
But I can watch it online, and without ads (Score:2)
It's going to be really hard for hulu to gain acceptance outside the US after telling everyone to fuck off.
Oh, and I certainly can buy Scott paper towels here in Canada.
What planet are these people on? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people want to pay for it then they'll go to iTunes.
If they do not then they will use another P2P system instead.
Having the ISP intercept and redirect their traffic will only annoy the consumers and damage the reputation of the ISP. Much like the trials of Phorm in the UK - which has lead to customer desertion and legal challenges.
I wonder if the people who come up with such stupid ideas even use the internet sometimes.
Re:What planet are these people on? (Score:5, Funny)
What planet are these people on?
Australia We seem to be the Guinea Pigs for half these retarded plans.
Parent
Re:What planet are these people on? (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to know why?
A "western" "developed" (capitalist) country, English speaking (in the main), and a relatively small population. Things can be tested out and tried, and if there are objections, then these can be taken into consideration before (if) the product ever makes it to market.
Potentially pissing off 21 million people is a lot better then potentially pissing off 60 million or 300 million.
Why not New Zealand? Well, maybe less then five million people means that the sample size isn't quite big enough? I don't know.
Parent
Why not New Zealand. (Score:5, Interesting)
Where ever his media has significant market share, the population has made wild swings toward corporatism.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Australia We seem to be the Guinea Pigs for half these retarded plans.
Don't you mean New Guinea Pigs?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
>>>I wonder if the people who come up with such stupid ideas even use the internet sometimes.
They use it.
But that's not enough. They want to CONTROL how it's used as well. (They must be Socialists/democrats.) Anyway, I was under the impression that this new idea merely offers the suggestion of legal methods, like watching "Lost" at abc.com..... it doesn't block access to a bittorrent of Lost if that's what you actually desire.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to CONTROL how it's used as well. (They must be Socialists/democrats.)
They are not socialists nor commonists nor democrats: They are "OLIGOPOLISTS", the leading edge of the system and thats's much worse. Extending their logic of "control" the next step is to automatically have your ISP auto-sue you for not following their advice. If given the possibility those oligopolists would go as far as automagically judge and fine you the appropriate damages (3fantastrillion dollars) taking them directly from your bank accounts.
And this just for thinking of watching LOST which, BTW, is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice way to damage your own argument, by introducing off-topic and irrelevant "socialist/democrat" McCain flamebait. :-)
At least get your terms straight.
Socialism, BTW, is when the state controls corporations.
When corporations control information (and the state, since people don't like information control) it is called "fascism". Fascism shares a lot in common with 'mercantilism', the system of corporate rule in the Colonies which lead to the Boston Tea Party, and so the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Socialism, BTW, is when the state controls corporations.
I was under the impression that it's the other way round. Corporations control the state, and the socialists merely give lip-service to the People, while secretly hatching deals that will enrich the corporations further. (Such as passing a Democrat/Biden Anti-bankruptcy bill which allows corporations to default, but not citizens.)
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism, BTW, is when the state controls corporations.
Which is also known as fascism. Wacky.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wait wait Pro-IP and the Patriot act was pushed by which party?
Oh yeahhhh, every senator that initially voted against the patriot act or abstained was a democrat. In final call 62 dems and 3 reps voted against it. In renewal 124dems and 13reps voted against it. For Pro-IP 29dems opposed/abstained 23reps opposed/abstained.
So maybe you should think about who has been trying to control the populace (not saying either side is good but...).
Also: "Anyway, I was under the impression that this new idea merely offer
Re: (Score:2)
I'd buy it if it were significantly cheaper than a physical copy and not crippled. Oh wait, that will never happen.
Good thing I like indie titles anyway, which are either free, non-broken, or both.
Not interested (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not interested (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't mess with my searches (Score:5, Interesting)
"When an ISP's customers use a file sharing program such as LimeWire to, for example, search for a pirated music track, they are instead presented with a list of search results containing legitimate versions of the song and are given the opportunity to buy it instantly."
The day my ISP start manipulating my searches is the day when I cancel my subscription and move to greener pastures.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all have a slew of choices readily available to us.
Sign me up! (Score:4, Funny)
"Files that aren't present on the list of illegal files are not blocked or impeded in any way."
Great! I'll just take your word for it then.
"legitimate" != "paid for" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo! had their music search, and I was incredibly disappointed that it simply refused to return any free (as in beer) content. A friend of mine (Joe Frew, I wrote about him in the old K5 Paxil Diaries) had another friend host dozens of his original songs, I linked them from my (now defunct) web site, and you could not find these MP3s on any search engine!
Google is just as bad, even though they're getting better; tha last time I searched "Huckleberry Finn" (in the public domain) the first three hits were Amazon and the like. This is IMO incredibly shoddy.
There are literally thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of songs out there in myriad places whose artists WANT you to hear.
Trying to sell bits is insane, actually "buying" bits is even crazier, as crazy as buying a bottle of water when there's a perfectly good drinking fountain handy. Don't sell bits, sell the medium that stores the bits! If you're a band, sell tickets and merch and use your bits to make fans.
Nobody talented ever starved or was forced into another profession from copyright infrinegent, but many talented folks have starved or been forced out by obscurity.
BTW, there are thousands of FREE MP3s, OGGs, SHNs and FLACs on archive.org. If Kazaa's founder wants to go legit, he should make a service that allows us to find the truly free songs. If I want to hear the top 40 I'll just turn the radio on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with free indie music is that it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. The existing studio system might suck as gatekeepers (these were the people who gave Britney Spears a recording contract, after all). But at least when you see a studio-signed recording artist you get SOME assurance that the album will at least be professionally produced and that the artist has SOME talent (Ashley Simpson and Kelly Osbourne aside).
If indie music is to really overthrow the studio system, the field nee
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The only good sign that music has some sort of worth is if you listen to it yourself and decide for yourself that it doesn't suck.
Period. Just because some corporate suit thought a song could make money does NOT give it worth. A song's value is determined by one metric: if YOU think it's good. Everything else is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Those gatekeepers also have to have various musical interests. With the free music sites I tried, I found it very difficult to find anything I would call Hip Hop or R&B, and certainly nothing I would call Soul or Neo-Soul. There are some people out there who would say all of that music is garbage and not really music anyway. If all the gatekeepers were like that, it would be a problem for everybody whose musical interests don't match that of the gatekeeper. Also make sure the gatekeeper isn't one of the
Re: (Score:2)
About the only differences between now and when I started buying records back when I was a teenager is there is a lot more music, it's digital, and unlike then, today's only "gatekeeper" is Clear Channel.
Then, like now, the radio played mostly dreck. I didn't discover the Yardbirds from the radio; the radio didn't play them. I discovered Yardbirds music (Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton) from local bands playing their music. I didn't discover Led Zeppelin from the radio, I walked into a record store and Led Zepp
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Suggest this to your friend:
http://www.jamendo.com/ [jamendo.com] Jamendo is a website with free, legal and unlimited music published under Creative Commons licenses. You can loose one or more weeks listening to the traks there... all legit and free.
Re: (Score:2)
You can loose one or more weeks
Tell me how, I'd love to set one or two weeks free!
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that idea is this: There are way too many mods that reward/punish based on groupthink. I myself have been rewarded/punished several times based strictly on groupthink. I have also noticed mods can swing very wildly when something goes against groupthink. I once gave a list of the features that I believe Linux requires if they are going to push it as a replacement for Windows,and in a single day it swung all the way from +4 insightful to -5 flamebait to finally end at +5 insightful. So while
Re: (Score:2)
I'm feeding this troll, sorry. :(
if it's really flamebait, why would the mods need Emb3rz to point that out?
Some mods (though it's recommended that they don't) browse at 1 point comments and higher. As such, they wouldn't see that comment. With my Karma bonus putting my comment to 2 points it would be visible to them. This, then, serves to draw additional attention to a comment that was (at the time of my original posting) in need of moderation.
Should mods automatically carry out the requests of people who assume that they are incompetent?
No, they should simply look at what another's opinion is and reason on whether they agree.
That's why I think Emb3rz's request is off-topic -- it is completely unnecessary and contributes nothing to the discussion
The idea of community moderation in the Slashdot
Kawhazaa? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kawhazaa? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Almost got it right (Score:2, Interesting)
I want a system that consolidates searching and links to all freely licensed content. There's plenty of it, if you know where to look, and it's all I need. It's just kind of a pain to track it down.
Target Audiance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I already paid for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I bought a full Pink Floyd set when I was younger.
now all the cds are scratchy and doesn't want to play anymore.
Nevertheless, if I am to believe the editors screechs, what I really bought is a licence for those songs...
=> I shouldn't have to buy full price for a new set, they should sell me the cds at cost of plastic and I just exchange them with the ones I have. Or I can argue that I have the RIGHT to download them, as I already have a licence for them.
Don't believe me ? Have a look at Walt Disney dvds. They are the only ones that propose a replacement disk at cost because they only sell you a licence to view...
=>Then the editor turns out a REMASTERED version ,which is covered by another licence, and that I don't have the rights for. The version I had is not findable in the market anymore, the editor changed names or something else, and I cannot get a replacement disk. Which they never offered in the first place.
Also I pay a tax on every recording medium I buy, to compensate the copies I will make for my private use, as I do not resell them.
Astonishingly the law doesn't recognize this tax as a blanket licence for use as a person. They want us to pay the tax and then pay an additional blanket licence.
So the market is skewed in favor of the editors that make it so that you have to pay and pay again FOR THE SAME THING.
A form of racket...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A form of racket...
only possible through the coercive force of government.
Red pill?
Hipocrysy (Score:1)
CC/XMP (Score:3, Informative)
It occurred to me that one could use Creative Commons in conjunction with XMP (metadata tagging) to construct a peer-to-peer network for easier sharing of legitimate files combined with attribution.
More information about XMP and CC:-
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/XMP [creativecommons.org]
Pay only? (Score:2)
Sounds like they don't realize that you can have free AND legal content. Perpetuating the lies the RIAA is pushing that everything you get without paying is piracy.
Snake oil. (Score:2)
There is no way this could possibly work.
They could go for hashes, but they would have to have a hash of every file they wanted to protect (not too difficult) and then break into the download stream to intercept the download traffic, completely download the file, re-hash it and then block that specific file for that specific user. The bandwidth, CPU, common sense, restrictions would make this impossible.
What they're doing is filenames. If you search for "Britney Spears" in your P2P window and it comes up wi