RIAA kills off eDonkey, WinMX
A P2P massacre
Thursday, September 22, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Betanews is reporting that The RIAA has managed to shut down WinMX, a popular peer-to-peer file sharing service. In addition, eDonkey has apparently been shut down by Reuters (though its website remains up).
Since most P2P networks today are decentralized, eliminating a P2P network completely is nearly impossible. However, the RIAA strategy seems to revolve around shutting down "super nodes" that, as a practical matter, cripples a given P2P service.
craeonics
Reply #3 Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:11 PM
Reply #3 Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:11 PM
More on the WinMX story: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=921
And more on that (alledgedly false) eDonkey rumour: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=923
Last time I checked (years ago), eDonkey/Mule was well on its way of becoming serverless. So it's pretty hard to shut the technology down.
And more on that (alledgedly false) eDonkey rumour: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=923
Last time I checked (years ago), eDonkey/Mule was well on its way of becoming serverless. So it's pretty hard to shut the technology down.
DocX
Reply #4 Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:39 PM
Reply #4 Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:39 PM
Ah, There will always be a way to share files with people all over the planet one way or another. What you share is up to the person shareing and there conscience so whether its software, movies, music,or your latest amature porn venture no one will be able to stop it in the long run. I feel bad for software comps (like Stardock) that spend a lot of time developing software and selling it for a fair price then people being able to get it for free but as for the RIAA they seem to be greedy rich bullies in the first place. Maybe they shouldn't pay John travolta 12 million dollars for making a half a** movie and get there pay scale back in perspective. Im not feeling sorry for the guy working there that cant afford to pay his airfare for his family's second vacation this year
. Just my 2cents worth...
. Just my 2cents worth...
-xino
Reply #5 Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:48 PM
Reply #5 Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:48 PM
RIAA = music industry
MPAA = movie industry
there's a big difference.
also it should be noted that almost every single motion picture studio is taking part in a joint venture to stop piracy as a single organization. I don't recall the name right now though. :/
MPAA = movie industry
there's a big difference.
also it should be noted that almost every single motion picture studio is taking part in a joint venture to stop piracy as a single organization. I don't recall the name right now though. :/
milksama
Reply #7 Friday, September 23, 2005 9:08 AM
Reply #7 Friday, September 23, 2005 9:08 AM
I've never used WinMX for downloading music...RIAA, why must you kill my fun?
ffejeroni
Reply #8 Friday, September 23, 2005 2:04 PM
Reply #8 Friday, September 23, 2005 2:04 PM
There has to be something better they can do with their time? Can't they put all that effort into helping people in LA and now TX? Like DocX said, it's always going to happen, so why not embrace it? I'm a musician, and from my point of view I'd rather have a 15 year old download a couple songs or a concert of my band, then decide he loves it and goes out and buys all our CD's and attends all the shows he can! It just makes sense to me. Why don't they go after websites that provide cracks and serial numbers? Wouldn't that nip it all in the budd? Some some ponderings;)
Gusteau
Reply #9 Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:38 AM
Not so much. They're both money grubbing cartels. Just my 0.0002 cents worth
Reply #9 Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:38 AM
| RIAA = music industry MPAA = movie industry there's a big difference. |
Not so much. They're both money grubbing cartels. Just my 0.0002 cents worth
Antihazard
Reply #10 Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:58 AM
Reply #10 Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:58 AM
Hmph. Next thing ya know there'll be petitions and crud about this.
TheD2JBug
Reply #11 Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:18 AM
Reply #11 Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:18 AM
As much as I enjoyed using WinMX , I think the RIAA is applying the law correctly this time.
AFAIK the law says that you are not allowed to facilitate the distribution of copywrited works for commercial purposes.
So looking at the law , the act of sharing is not illegal. What would be illegal is the parties who make money from sharing music. That would be the makers of the software because they get ad revenue. So the RIAA is IMHI doing it correctly this time instead of suing single mothers who's kids installed Kazaa .
AFAIK the law says that you are not allowed to facilitate the distribution of copywrited works for commercial purposes.
So looking at the law , the act of sharing is not illegal. What would be illegal is the parties who make money from sharing music. That would be the makers of the software because they get ad revenue. So the RIAA is IMHI doing it correctly this time instead of suing single mothers who's kids installed Kazaa .
d0p3y2k4
Reply #12 Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:50 PM
Reply #12 Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:50 PM
the r.i.a.a didnt do a good job keeping winmx offline a cracking group cracked the servers & people i know have been on it downloading i dont use it what for i dont let strangers download from me i stick to private servers 
RiddickRom
Reply #13 Sunday, September 25, 2005 6:11 AM
Routers got it very wrong, they based this on trying to contact the company and getting no reply. Someone should have told them (google could have) the address they were trying was a year out of date, they moved offices a year ago. The company is alive and quite well.
Reply #13 Sunday, September 25, 2005 6:11 AM
| In addition, eDonkey has apparently been shut down by Reuters (though its website remains up |
Routers got it very wrong, they based this on trying to contact the company and getting no reply. Someone should have told them (google could have) the address they were trying was a year out of date, they moved offices a year ago. The company is alive and quite well.
whoozhe
Reply #14 Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:31 AM
Reply #14 Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:31 AM
Audio CD sales will continue their downward slide period.
Even if the net did not exist the current management practices of these conglomerates virtually guarantees it.
An industry ran by yesterday's managers using yesterday's methods.
I already have every record/CD of every song I want and nothing released in the last 10 years interests me.
In fact I find more interesting music from the vast array of unsigned artist who make their music available for download.
Even if the net did not exist the current management practices of these conglomerates virtually guarantees it.
An industry ran by yesterday's managers using yesterday's methods.
I already have every record/CD of every song I want and nothing released in the last 10 years interests me.
In fact I find more interesting music from the vast array of unsigned artist who make their music available for download.
Fairyy~
Reply #15 Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:58 AM
Reply #15 Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:58 AM
I really don't mind paying....I use itunes now...but I used kazaa lite for years too. When all this riaa started up I never bothered to d/load winmix. For me it was just convenience. I wasnt looking for a free deal. Where I live..we dont have a music store that close.. itunes is ok but I hate that they force me to play back the song I paid for only using their player. Its big and cumbersome and I prefer my winamp and foobar. Wish they would just fix that little snafu and id be happy paying for music.
Fairyy~
Reply #16 Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:00 AM
I think the price is inflated anyway..average cd is $16 here.
Reply #16 Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:00 AM
| Audio CD sales will continue their downward slide period. |
I think the price is inflated anyway..average cd is $16 here.
onidraky
Reply #17 Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:47 PM
Reply #17 Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:47 PM
All this shutting down, or trying and failing, even if they do succeed with in the end harm them more than hurt them. I download alot, but everything I download that I really like I end up buying at some time. If it wasn't for me downloading CDs first I wouldn't have 90% of the CDs and DVDs I have now. If in the almost impossible future they do manage to shut them down you can bet I won't be buying 90% of what I do now.
RiddickRom
Reply #18 Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:53 PM
Reply #18 Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:53 PM
You can't really use the defence that because you may buy in the future, it's ok to take it now.
Lets put all other data aside for a moment and just focus on music and video as these are the two most common types of files shared over p2p. If I connect to a p2p program and download some music and video, while downloading I'm sharing with others. Legally I'm breaking a law and some would say I'm stealing.
If I record a TV show onto tape and like it so much I want to share it with friends. Legally I'm violating the copyright and some would argue, I'm actually stealing from the creator of the show and all involved from staff to network.
If I listen to the radio and decide to tape some songs I like and give them a friend, again I'm breaking a law in my country and again many would have to call that theft.
The difference between the three scenarios is that with p2p, there is a very strong desire by companies like the RIAA with a lot of financial muscle to target it and try and raise the copyright violation to some level akin to a pirate company who makes mass copies of commercial music and video for sale. Turning it into a serious criminal offence.
The idea that you may buy some or all of what you download at some future point is still no defence in any of the above scenarios, it is a weak argument and no matter how hard you try to ignore it, in most countries, it is a copyright violation.
I'd argue personally that it was not theft but the RIAA, MPAA and other groups have put such a spin on this in recent years that its become difficult to seperate the idea of theft from a breach of copyright.
So I'm not going to defend p2p, just like I wouldn't defend TV, or the radio. I wouldn't defend my local library for giving me free access to books either. It is what it is and the whole idea of sharing has been with us much longer than any copyright law. It is in a very real way, a basic right we have to share and any law that overshadows that will never really be workable. In our society this doesn't in general, make it right or acceptable.
If I passed a law that I could own a river in a village and then passed a law that stated no one could take from the river unless they first paid me for the use of it. It is reasonable to expect that people would drink from it and defend their right to do so with arguments such as, I was going to pay for it later. It's not like I'm doing any harm, the water never goes down, its constantly flowing. I wouldn't have bought the water anyway. And so on.
Some people are going to the river, drinking from it and bringing water back for their friends.
Taking this further, some people setup stalls by the river to help people get access to the water more effeciently, even packaging the water. Some do this for free, some charge money for the time they invest in this.
The only real justification for this is to state that you believe the owner of the river has no right to own it in the first place. Despite the fact they may have put a lot of time and or money into keeping the river flowing or even creating the river in the first place. I know this is far from a perfect analogy but it serves enough of a purpose to illustrate the point I'm making.
So in the end we will all do what we want to do with regards to sharing but trying to make excuses for it above and beyond the desire to have it and or belief in your right to have it, is just as wrong as the act itself.
Would you drink from the river if you were thirsty?
Lets put all other data aside for a moment and just focus on music and video as these are the two most common types of files shared over p2p. If I connect to a p2p program and download some music and video, while downloading I'm sharing with others. Legally I'm breaking a law and some would say I'm stealing.
If I record a TV show onto tape and like it so much I want to share it with friends. Legally I'm violating the copyright and some would argue, I'm actually stealing from the creator of the show and all involved from staff to network.
If I listen to the radio and decide to tape some songs I like and give them a friend, again I'm breaking a law in my country and again many would have to call that theft.
The difference between the three scenarios is that with p2p, there is a very strong desire by companies like the RIAA with a lot of financial muscle to target it and try and raise the copyright violation to some level akin to a pirate company who makes mass copies of commercial music and video for sale. Turning it into a serious criminal offence.
The idea that you may buy some or all of what you download at some future point is still no defence in any of the above scenarios, it is a weak argument and no matter how hard you try to ignore it, in most countries, it is a copyright violation.
I'd argue personally that it was not theft but the RIAA, MPAA and other groups have put such a spin on this in recent years that its become difficult to seperate the idea of theft from a breach of copyright.
So I'm not going to defend p2p, just like I wouldn't defend TV, or the radio. I wouldn't defend my local library for giving me free access to books either. It is what it is and the whole idea of sharing has been with us much longer than any copyright law. It is in a very real way, a basic right we have to share and any law that overshadows that will never really be workable. In our society this doesn't in general, make it right or acceptable.
If I passed a law that I could own a river in a village and then passed a law that stated no one could take from the river unless they first paid me for the use of it. It is reasonable to expect that people would drink from it and defend their right to do so with arguments such as, I was going to pay for it later. It's not like I'm doing any harm, the water never goes down, its constantly flowing. I wouldn't have bought the water anyway. And so on.
Some people are going to the river, drinking from it and bringing water back for their friends.
Taking this further, some people setup stalls by the river to help people get access to the water more effeciently, even packaging the water. Some do this for free, some charge money for the time they invest in this.
The only real justification for this is to state that you believe the owner of the river has no right to own it in the first place. Despite the fact they may have put a lot of time and or money into keeping the river flowing or even creating the river in the first place. I know this is far from a perfect analogy but it serves enough of a purpose to illustrate the point I'm making.
So in the end we will all do what we want to do with regards to sharing but trying to make excuses for it above and beyond the desire to have it and or belief in your right to have it, is just as wrong as the act itself.
Would you drink from the river if you were thirsty?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:21 PM
Without defending pirating music, software, or movies, it seems they are taking the court ruling a bit far. I understood it to mean (and it is vague) that a company couldn't market their software as being useful for illegal copying. Not that file sharing couldn't exist at all. If these supernodes are facilitating illegal downloads, then can't that be stopped without taking them off line completely (or would that just be pointless?)
In a related link on BetaNews http://www.betanews.com/article/New_Software_Developed_to_Combat_P2P/1127420143 they describe an app that will check systems for file sharing software and illegal copies of files. If they can recognize an illegal file (by hash / silmilar process?) then they can just stop that file from being shared on the network (or at least not with the help of a supernode), I would think.