Seriously, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to read between the lines.

Morgan

Morgan.

I, and no doubt a lot of people who’re reading your posts, are wondering why they’re unsigned.

Anyway, me thinks Sharman/DCIA doth protest too much - waaaay too much - to paraphrase a phrase from Shakespear’s *The Taming of the Shrew*.

You say, “Please also see the response to Drake Zamanov?s Slyck story”. OK. Where is it? Neither Drake nor I have been able to find it.

More later ; )

Cheers!

Before I reply to the statements you made, I would like to see the response to my story.

My store was originally posted here: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5426 and I do not see your response.

Drake Zamanov

Listen. I’m not against Sharman making money from their P2P network software. What I do object to is the crap you lot bundle in with your software. All that adware and bloatyness. I also do not object to you cosying up to the MPAA et al. My concern with it is that you will allow content providers access to hunting down the illegitimate sharers once you have your system in place (Or will you just lock out everyone who is not a ’subscriber’ to your new DRM’d network?).

I have not seen any innovation in the Fasttrack network for ages. All I have seen is more bloated addons and adware. Most people with any ounce of sense will have their own decent antivirus software installed anyhow. And if they don’t. More fool them!

Whilst it’s true that that Sharman networks has been attacked by the industry such as the RIAA and Sharman has fought against them. The software itself never really went anywhere (What happened to more secure sharing once you knew the RIAA etc were attacking your userbase? You did nothing to help them). In fact it was left to others to backwards engineer the software into Kazaa Lite. Which you folks decided to try and kill using the very tool - read DMCA - that everyone else loathes. You failed on that front too.

I’m sorry but all your corporate double speak does nothing to qualm my fears about what Sharman’s intentions are and all I can see at present is a company getting ready for a fall and struggling to find a new business model since the last one has so obviously failed.

RIP Kazaa (At least as we knew it).

Long live free and open P2P!

Specifically, it has made such advances as integrating anti-virus software, introducing security safeguards to prevent inadvertent sharing of private information, developing an advanced family filter to enable parents to protect their children from being exposed to undesirable content, and offering the alternatives of an ad-free premium version as well as a continually upgraded ad-supported version.

The only unique danger to Kazaa users, and other P2P software users, that has emerged during this time, is the threat of RIAA lawsuits for alleged copyright infringement.

Why do a disservice to p2pnet readers by wrongly asserting that Sharman Networks desires to “become one with Hollywood,” meaning it does not have the interests of its users as a priority?

Sharman Networks wants to solve this one remaining problem in a way that will benefit its users and all consumers – not, as p2pnet suggests, sell them out – at the same time as it responds fairly to needs of content providers.

Aren’t P2pnet readers intelligent enough to know that redistribution of unauthorized content is not acceptable and that the current unresolved situation, with reports of rampant infringement and other destructive behavior, cannot continue indefinitely?

Creators of copyrighted works deserve to be compensated just as do the developers and distributors of P2P software and others who add value in the content creation and distribution chain.

Does seeking fair and equitable solutions to the current dilemma qualify an entity for membership in what p2pnet perjoratively calls the “Korporate Klub?” Then shame on p2pnet.

P2P users, who pay for the bandwidth, storage, transmission, and even some of the marketing of copyrighted works, deserve much more attractive pricing – and many more flexible options – than anything that has been put forth so far, and it is those kinds of solutions that must be sought.

The $0.99 per track a la carte price charged by old-architecture centralized music download stores was established to be non-competitive with CD sales so that major labels could maintain their retail price control. It is not a reasonable charge to Internet users and is even more unfair to P2P users.

Although p2pnet tries to distinguish between Hollwood “boycotting p2p technology” and “relentlessly victimizing file sharers, most of whom are Kazaa subscribers,” aren’t these really just two manifestations of the same strategy?

The entertainment industries have not yet changed from this strategy of trying to kill P2P technology and extinguish file sharing, not only among Kazaa users, but ultimately among all P2P software users. They are the ones who need to alter their course.

Why does p2pnet imply that users of other less widely distributed file-sharing software applications will somehow be exempt from their bludgeoning tactics, if there is no change in course? Isn’t this naively misleading and potentially endangering to its readers?

Sharman Networks has always seen the ultimate role of P2P software providers as legitimate participants on the distributor side of the extraordinary new phenomenon of “super distribution” bringing benefits to both consumers and content rights holders far superior to preceding distribution channels.

This has been frustrated by the refusal-to-deal of major labels and movie studios, although somewhat alleviated by the ever increasing number of smaller independents who have been signing up.

Its sales and marketing affiliate Altnet has closed a significant number of content as well as distribution deals, and is clearly growing its business and gaining in acceptance in many quarters, and so are other unrelated P2P content distribution firms who offer alternative models.

After helping launch the DCIA, Sharman Networks has sought neither to control nor subvert the mission of what has evolved as a voluntary, consensus-based trade organization.

Sharman Networks is now just one of 20 Members in the steadily growing DCIA, including companies who are competitive with Sharman Networks and/or each other, as well as companies who have no affiliation with it at all, but have legitimate roles to play in existing or prospective business solutions.

The DCIA itself has honestly and straight-forwardly sought to achieve balanced representation from all key sectors of the distributed computing industry, including content providers and digital media rights holders; suppliers of file-sharing programs and related P2P software applications; and companies providing the platforms and technical support services for storage, transmission, security, and exhibition of content.

It was formed to foster business relationships and an industry environment in which the legitimate commercial development of P2P file sharing and more advanced distributed computing applications can flourish.

Why does p2pnet believe that the “DCIA is a ‘trade association’ reminiscent, in many respects, of the the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)?” Is this because the DCIA is trying to develop true commerce – or trade – to replace the litigation and legislative upheaval that, if left unresolved, will just increasingly endanger P2P users?

The DCIA does not advocate untenable positions nor argue disingenuously for solutions that cannot be supported by all affected parties.

Instead, it is actively conducting “shuttle diplomacy” between parties on all sides, several of whom are involved in serious litigation. Despite the degree of difficulty, the DCIA is making gradual progress with the major players. Specifics of such efforts obviously must remain private pending the outcome of court cases.

Is it because of this stealth nature of many of its current activities that p2pnet perceives that “the DCIA is out there alone?” The fact of the matter is that the DCIA is regularly engaged in a large number of confidential solutions-focused discussions with many parties, including representatives of what p2pnet accurately describes as a “substantial, and steadily growing, base of independent p2p network application providers.”

These entities in many cases have very different, although often equally viable ideas as Sharman Networks, and that is not in any way a problem for the DCIA.

What compels p2pnet to slander this group by claiming “the only place the DCIA would lead them would be to certain disaster?” These very companies are in fact, with the DCIA’s modest but genine help, now leading each other to launch and market-test a host of business solutions that show great promise.

While DRM and associated technologies are clearly part of many of these solutions, tools for promoting and ensuring fair use are as important as what p2pnet calls “tools to lock up content in the bag.”

Key to any viable solution is that it respects the openness of the Internet – regarding access, standards, and intellectual property. Creativity, honesty and innovation are exactly what are needed in this environment.

Please also see the response to Drake Zamanov’s Slyck story.