eXeem Lite Public Beta Released

Found on Slashdot on Saturday, 22 January 2005
Browse Filesharing

Just days after the release of eXeem Open Beta comes eXeem lite 0.19 Public Beta. Much like with KaZaA, the official version of eXeem comes chock full of spy/adware -- specifically, cydoor. eXeem lite is spyware free and free of bloat -- and free. Version .20, which should fix a few minor bugs, is expected 'in next coming days.' (read: soon)

That's the same reason why I never installed Kazaa. When it was clear that eXeem will be closed source, it wasn't hard to imagine why. If you want to try it, get at least eXeem lite. With such a bad start, I won't try it in the near future. But whoever wants spyware is free to do so.

Peer-to-peer 'seeders' could be targeted

Found on NewScientist on Sunday, 16 January 2005
Browse Filesharing

BayTSP, based in California, US, monitors peer-to-peer (P2P) trading networks using a technique called software "spidering". The new software, called FirstSource, allows it to determine which user first uploaded a particular file for trading. It does this by mimicking the behaviour of a user on a massive scale - sending out multiple requests for a file extremely quickly. It deduces the culprits by assuming that only they will have the full 100% of the file, having uploaded the original.

Graham says FirstSource could enable copyright enforcers to focus their legal attacks against those who are at the root of illegal distribution.

Adam Langley, a UK-based P2P programmer adds that network developers could also modify their software to get around such monitoring.

"I suspect it would only require a trivial modification to render this technique useless," adds Ian Clarke, who is one of the programmers behind an anonymous file-trading network called Freenet. Freenet makes it impossible to tell who requests a file by encrypting data and communications and distributing between multiple sources.

That only leads to better and more anonymous software; it's a circle. I don't understand the reasons the MPAA/RIAA has anyway. Sales go up and more and more money comes in, despite filesharing. And it's clearly not stealing; it's all about copies. Also, the industry always says every copied file is a loss of money. That's too easy: just because someone downloaded an album doesn't mean he would have bought it. In most cases it's a "Nice to have, but not worth the money" thing. The equation "downloads = lost sales" is totally wrong.

Barely legal? Strip poker hits Cingular phones

Found on CNet News on Wednesday, 05 January 2005
Browse Filesharing

A tepid version of strip poker for cell phones is set to debut in the United States, and while there's no nudity--on the screen, at least-- the game's distributor is preparing for complaints that it stretches the boundaries of good taste.

Pfaff said the company is readying itself for a storm of indecency complaints. The U.S. version has been "toned down" from the one now available in Europe, where the virtual models are nude, due to more conservative U.S. attitudes towards nudity.

The U.S. version is "about as racy as a lingerie ad," Pfaff said.

What's so filthy about strip poker? Especially about a censored one. I remember more explicit games back on the Amiga, and nobody cared. Something like that wouldn't make me even shrug; let alone freaking out about nudity. Guess I'm not conservative enough.

Risk Your PC's Health for a Song?

Found on PC World on Thursday, 30 December 2004
Browse Filesharing

A reader initially alerted PC World to an ad-laden Windows Media Audio file, titled "Alicia Keys Fallin' Songs In A Minor 4.wma." We then found two other WMA files and two Windows Media Video files that had been similarly modified.

Using a packet analysis tool called Etherpeek, we determined that each media file loaded a page served by a company called Overpeer (owned by Loudeye). That page set off a chain of events that led to the creation of several Internet Explorer windows, each containing a different ad or adware.

Morgenstern characterized Overpeer's actions as just deserts for people who illegally trade copyrighted works for free. "Remember, the people who receive something like (the ad-laden media files), in some cases, were on P-to-P, and they were trying to get illicit files," he says.

When we played the modified files, the License Acquisition dialog box showed a page containing ads and quickly spawned more IE windows, each containing a different ad.

Not only did we get bombarded with unwanted ads, but one of the ad windows in a video file tried to install adware onto our test PC surreptitiously, while another added items to our browser's Favorites list and attempted to change our home page. And a window from the original music file asked to download a file called lyrics.zip, which contained the installer for 180search Assistant, commonly categorized as an adware program.

First they try to annoy P2P users with bogus files, and now Overpeer tries a direct attack. I wonder how legal it is to infect a computer with spyware; perhaps that allows those users to fight back and sue Overpeer. Furthermore, Overpeer and the music industry and good buddies, so I guess they knew it too.

LokiTorrent vs. MPAA

Found on Slashdot on Wednesday, 29 December 2004
Browse Filesharing

It seems that the attack on torrent sites is continuing strong. This time Lokitorrent is being sued by the MPAA. Unlike Suprnova and most of the previous sites however, they aren't planning to just roll over and die. It will no doubt be a dificult fight, but they plan to stay up for the time being. Also, they are asking for donations to cover their legal expenses. So far they have raised $8,755 out of a needed $30,000.

Finally someone who stands up and fights. The music industry must not think that whatever it tries succeeds. Let's just hope that the judge has a little brain left and realizes that running a tracker is nothing illegal.

BitTorrent file-swapping networks face crisis

Found on CNet News on Sunday, 19 December 2004
Browse Filesharing

Last week, the Motion Picture Association of America launched a series of worldwide legal actions, aimed at people who ran the infrastructure for BitTorrent networks being used to distribute movies and other copyrighted materials without permission.

Hollywood officials said last week that legal actions had already been filed against BitTorrent tracker operators in several countries and that they would continue to pursue other copyright infringers online.

"Our message is this: If you are running an infringing server, stop," John Malcolm, the MPAA's director of worldwide antipiracy operations, said last week. "There are more enriching ways to use your talents. Take down your servers immediately, or face the consequences."

There's no question that the disappearance of SuprNova and others will be felt widely around the Net, but file-swapping community insiders said it won't dramatically change behavior.

Did those torrent sites host any copyrighted material? No. You can even find torrents in Google. What now, planning to sue them too? And that's another reason for my CD/DVD boycott.

P2P In 15 Lines of Code

Found on Slashdot on Wednesday, 15 December 2004
Browse Filesharing

Edward Felten of the very fine Freedom to Tinker has written a 15 line P2P program in Python. From the post on Freedom to Tinker, "I wrote TinyP2P to illustrate the difficulty of regulating peer-to-peer applications. Peer-to-peer apps can be very simple, and any moderately skilled programmer can write one, so attempts to ban their creation would be fruitless." Matthew Scala, a reader of Freedom to Tinker, has responded with the 9 line MoleSter, written in Perl.

How disastrous! Now the movie/music industry will realize who is their true enemy: not those P2P application and not their users. This evil thing called programming makes copyright violation possible. It created P2P, DeCSS, ISO tools and tons of audio rippers. The industry simply has to go after the developers. And to be total honest: I wouldn't be surprised at all if the RIAA/MPAA would do exactly that.

Supreme Court to hear P2P case

Found on CNet News on Friday, 10 December 2004
Browse Filesharing

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday said it would hear a controversial case on whether file-sharing software companies could be held legally responsible for copyright infringement on their networks.

The court's decision could also be a sobering sign for technology companies well outside the world of file-swapping. At the core of the case is an interpretation of a 20-year-old decision that made VCRs legal despite their ability to copy TV shows and movies, which ultimately helped pave the way for a host of technologies ranging from CD burners to Apple Computer's iPod.

"There's a lot more at stake here for the technology industry than for the copyright industry," said Fred von Lohmann, an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney who has represented StreamCast Networks on the issue. "This case will not be determinant of the future of peer to peer around the world, but it will be determinant of the future of a whole host of future digital products."

If such a decision becomes reality, then there should be good chances that the same idea can be successfully applied in other areas as well. Based on the idea that the manufacturer can be held liable for the misuse of its products, people could start sueing eg. Smith&Wesson. Obviously, their products support homicide; they should be responsible for that too.

Study: Artists not threatened by file sharing

Found on CNet News on Sunday, 05 December 2004
Browse Filesharing

Most musicians and artists say the Internet has helped them make more money from their work despite online file-trading services that allow users to copy songs and other material for free, according to a study released on Sunday.

Artists were split on the merits of peer-to-peer networks, with 47 percent saying that they prevent artists from earning royalties for their work and another 43 percent saying they helped promote and distribute their material.

But two-thirds of those surveyed said file sharing posed little threat to them, and less than one-third of those surveyed said file sharing was a major threat to creative industries.

Only 3 percent said the Internet hurt their ability to protect their creative works.

"What we hear from a wide spectrum of artists is that, despite the real challenges of protecting work online, the Internet has opened new ways for them to exercise their imaginations and sell their creations," said report author Mary Madden, a research specialist at the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

The music industry is not trying to protect artists; it just wants to do what it always did: make money by abusing artists. I would have no problem to pay $1 for an album (and that's whan an artist usually gets after the industry took their share).

BitTorrent servers under attack

Found on CNet News on Thursday, 02 December 2004
Browse Filesharing

Unknown attackers have downed file-sharing networks based on a common peer-to-peer technology, according to the administrator of LokiTorrent, one of the networks affected.

The distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on the BitTorrent infrastructure prevented some users from downloading files for up to 10 hours on Wednesday, said the administrator, who asked to be identified only by his online handle, "Lowkee." The target was the central BitTorrent directories, or trackers, which are used by people to find movies, music and other content on the file-swapping network, he said.

"Avoiding future attacks will require an overhaul of the BitTorrent protocol itself, as right now there lies too much reliance on the trackers," Lowkee said. "We're hoping future changes will reduce the requirement of the tracker to an initial connection, therefore moving the actual peer-sharing burden to the peers themselves."

The question is who has an interest in attacking Bittorrent servers. There might be commercial P2P platforms, who are afraid of losing users and income. Or, there might be an industry who gets more desperate since its lawsuits don't change anything.