Since Napster did not support resuming incomplete downloads (you had to start all over from the beginning if download ever disconnected) and did not support multisource downloads, file hashing would have served no purpose.

But then files you download from websites or FTP sites don’t have hashes.

The article did not mention WinMX even once. Some WinMXfan!

our four fathers fought and died to get us freedom and I’m not about to let the riaa take that away .

the Name is LadyMatika and I am not about to let somebody take away my freedom just because of greed!!!!!!!!!!!

Speaking for myself, I would not do that to Jon. It takes more than just words on a page to make a site. I have been here for a while. The longer I stay here, the more respect I have for the work and effort Jon does.

Since you have ad links on your site, let me post a hypothetical situation. Imagine if another site started copying all of your posts and posted them on their site. Further, imagine your page hits decreased by 10%, 25%, or 75%. Ten percent, 25%, or 75% of your traffic now heads over to get their news from the ‘not-your-site.org’ site instead of from p2pnet.net. You start to lose Advertising revenue and have less viewers on your page.

At what point:

1.Are the actions of the not-your-site.org’s owner(s) legal?
2.Are you, the owner of p2pnet.net, damaged?
3.How do you, the owner of p2pnet.net, feel?
4.What do you, the owner of p2pnet.net, do?

Basically, if the above were to happen, how would you feel? Are you damaged by someone taking your copyrighted material and posting it elsewhere? Do you lose revenue? Do you do nothing about it?

So, please review the above hypothetical example and let me know, using some analysis, how you analize the situation.

Perhaps you are not limited by such ‘dictatorial’ Copyright Law where you and your server reside. In the United States, Copyright Law makes it illegal to post ENTIRE articles, stories, etc. on your site (e.g., we are not legally allowed, without permission, to post the entire EFF article on our web-site). Why not quote specific portions of the article and link to the EFF site? Portions of the EFF story, article, post may be used since the portions used do not prevent someone from getting advertising or other revenue and do not remove their control over their property.

I saw Jon hit on this but there hasn’t been to my knowledge widescale discussion on it. One of the posters here makes mention of when the artists abandon the cartels and the contracts in favor of doing it themselves and keeping the money they would normally never see.

What do you think of these artists that were used in this little rootkit scheme? What was their names? Van hoot or something? How do you think they feel about all this. It surely isn’t improving their sales for a cd they worked hard on getting together. I don’t see Sony issuing a recall to reissue the cd without the rootkit. I do see people saying they don’t need it and won’t buy it. Actually the only folks I hear wanting this “Get Right With The Man” is the hackers wanting a free reign in an on line game.

Sony admits there are more out there on different cds with the same rootkit. So far we haven’t heard what other bands they have cursed into the pile of no sales through it.

The RIAA has shown what it is with the sue’em all. Through that you can see just how the cartel empire has been assembled. Any time a puppet organization is setup to “take the heat” you know there is a reek to the bizz.

And what of the p2p apps? Now Napster was a bit before my days. I didn’t know what p2p was then. Thankfully, the RIAA was bound and determined that I should know what it was, where it could be found, and what other equivalents were out there I was missing out on. Would never have known had they not been so vocal in their advertisements.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did Napster have any sort of hash? Since it was the early and front runner I suspect not. However Fasttrack did, abeit that it was easy for the hash to be cracked and the RIAA made hay with it through Loudeye. When they moved on to start on EDonkey, it took some doing to crack the hash of that one. Torrents have also been cracked to allow feeding of bad data but it took a long time to do that one. They had to wait till a couple of bright young minds figured that one out years later. I guess the purpose of all this writing is to show that indeed the p2p scene is responding to all this by finding ever harder ways to develop security. We are now on the edge of encrypted, anynomous filesharing being the norm and not the wished for feature. I suspect the next generation of filesharing will have all that as standard features. I am just waiting for a couple of bright young minds to spring it on the public from one of those out of the way places that don’t acknowledge WIPO and can’t be held responcible.

A new business model means losing all the current anti-competitive advantages the RIAA has depended on for years. I mean people actually pay what - $10-$20 for a music CD in this day and age? RIAA to self - let’s not abandon that cash cow too quickly.

The real deal-breaker will come when the recording artists en-masse abandon their traditional music labels and go independent. En-masse is the key here.

So we can curse and swear at the RIAA and its shyster fat-cats all we want. We need recording artists to come around. But they’ll need alternative business models, marketing channels, advertising, and sales channels based on digital technology.

And the artists still need to make money, so all of you who think music should be free need to let up a little.

! Google could do this !

ITMS could do this but I don’t think Steve Jobs thinks different enough here.

No-one is forcing anyuone out of work due to file sharing. It’s not us saying they’re fired.
Besides, if so many are being forced out ever month, how come they’ve still got staff….

Lawsuits. Waste of time.