Howdy Morgwen.

I completely realize that Napster and Gnutella are completely different things. I completely realize the Gnutella network can't simply be unplugged. I completely realize that fire is hot. I competely realize I shouldn't bathe with a plugged-in toaster. Etc etc...

I merely mentioned Napster to illustrate a point - be too specific in your mechanism that can be used for distributing copyrighted material, and you'll give reason for believing the tool's primary purpose is, well, distributing copyrighted material.

When (notice I didn't say if) the RIAA decides to come after Gnutella, they're going to go after visible figures to attack. And what are the visible figures in the Gnutella world? The Gnutella clients.

I'd just hate to see the authors of a program that we all find useful be subject to any sort of legal harassment, that's all. Sure, we can always move on to another Gnutella client, and the network will survive, but that doesn't do Xolox's authors any good, eh?

Hi,

you are right... the client could be filterd...huups... But when this day arrive, you could rename the client and register a different company - its a litlle bit tricky but it is not the end...

Morgwen

I do not agree.

Let's play with that theory. Why should RIAA seperate gnutela clients into "good" and "bad" and why should gnutella servants with metadata be more bad? You can trade music, video, cook recipes with any gnutella client. Forbiding one client makes no sense, users will switch over to next gnutella client etc.

Metadata is an important feature which all gnutella client should and will provide. See former GDF (gnutella devloper forum) debates and the high user demand, I guess metadata (Mp3, video, PDF, Word, whatever is popular) will be part of the protocoll soon. Gnutella isn't music, Metadata isn't music.

Hi Moak nice to see you again.

It doesn´t matter if you agree or not...

You say it make no sense to close seperate clients but this is what the RIAA is trying (Napster, Morpheus)! It is actually the only way the RIAA can act. Sometimes laws make no sense and may be they change...

And I think the RIAA will not seperate the clients in god or bad only in "very popular" and "not popular" - they will try to close them all but the popular first...

Morgwen

Don't panic!

Following this theory, we have to keep existing clients bad, because good clients are attacked by RIA? No, I say improve the protocoll and make all clients equal good.

Also this debate mixed protocolls (Napster/Fasttrack) with single gnutella clients. In the view of RIAA breaking down a centralized technology (Napster/Fasttrack are according to RIAAs internal papers) is possible - and makes one step forward in controlling music business/money flow. But breaking down one single gnutella client of many others does result in no advantage for RIAA at all. Gnutella can't be controlled as far as we know yet. Gnutella's strength is the decentral topology, open protocoll (!) and a resulting variety of clients.

So keep in mind metadata is not music only. It's only one aspect of gnutella's protocoll enhancement. Don't be afraid of developing the Gnutella protocoll.

Moak

Hi Moak!

A popular client is not every time a "god" client you should know the difference!

The improvement of gnet is a good idea, but I think its nearly impossible to keep the clients equal good...
The developers of the clients do not have the same ressources and they have to work together (this is a dream! )

Morgwen

I'm sorry you don't agree Moak - I've made a quick pass through the board the last few days, and I've found you to be one of the most intelligable posters here. I'm not oppose to metadata - I'm oppose to parsing of only specific metadata directly related to trading in a media that has already been demonstrated as a Bad Thing(tm) to traffic in.

It all boils down to: Is the client's primary purpose to trade in copyrighted materials?

Napster was. It was (effectively) shut down.
(My hope is) Xolox isn't. It won't be (effectively) shut down.

There is no reason for the RIAA to want to consider any Gnutella client good. I'm perfectly willing to grant that. I'm sure they'd like Gnutella gone, Napster gone, Morpheus gone, network shares gone, tape recorders gone, computers gone, cover bands gone, and cute little puppies gone, too.

But that's not the point. A *protocol* and an *application utilizing said protocol* are distinct. An application that uses a protocol to break the law is not legal. An application that doesn't use a protocol to break the law is not (in a sane legal system) illegal.

Otherwise, Napster woulda taken down TCP/IP as well. Now *that* would truly suck.

Napster was crushed. Why? Becuase it catered to the distribution of copyrighted materials.

Now let's take a look at Gnutella. The Gnutella network, by its nature, isn't specific to any single type of content. Ergo, it can be argued that its a general file sharing protocol that doesn't distinguish between the types of data present, copyrightable or not. It is no different then an open file share on a network. Or, more accurately, no different then HTTP, except it has a distributed DNS system tailored to indexing data rather then data-centers.

However, as soon as you add advanced functionality for a particular type of medium, you are in essence proposing that is an important, and possibly primary, function.

Now, to provide bitrate information means that Xolox, in addition to providing standard file sharing, is going out of it's way to make it easier to share music. Thus, it goes out of it's way to provided *enhanced* functionality towards the distribution of copyrighted materials.

Now, I'm not even sure if the "general file sharing tool" is legally in better standing then "music sharing tool". My entire statement rests on the (very weak) proposition that it is.

In that case, if a Gnutella client does NOT cross the line from being a "general file sharing tool" to a (in this case) "music sharing tool", it has a legal basis to defend itself.

I am sure the RIAA doesn't care about this distinction. But they aren't who I care notice it. It's the law and it's interpretation of Xolox's status that I'm concerned with.

Agreed. However, parse metadata for displaying bitrate information in a file sharing system, and you've tailored it for music. Each part (i.e. the underlying transfer system and the metadata for it's data) taken seperate is not a concern. Tie the two together though to enhance functionality for something that's been deemed bad is, well, bad.

To try and illustrate my point via useless shock value, let's say that someone creates a Gnutella client whose tailored to find kiddie porn. There is metadata floating about, which it parses to effectively aid its users in finding said kiddie porn. The metadata in-and-of-itself isn't illegal (though the data sure as hell is). The underlying protocol isn't illegal. Yet, the application is tailored to perform an illegal function. Sure, it might be able to transfer non-kiddie porn files, but that doesn't distract from its enhanced, and arguably primary, functionality. Shall we consider it safe to assume that this program is illegal?

Assuming you agree, it's not hard to make the logical comparison - both are Gnutella clients that provide enhanced functionality to aid in the transfer of files that are illegal to distribute. And this is the reason I'm leary about having bitrate information displayed.

Hi C=64!

Moak is right we can improve the gnet, with a code in every client for example! But he forgot that not every developer has enough money to integrate such improvements - ergo the most clients will close!

Morgwen

P.S.:

Forgot to say Moak is the best (almost)!

Morgwen

The RIAA will target on all centralized or any other vulnerable systems. Gnutella has been developed to stand such "attacks", there is no significant change when adding metadata to the protocoll IMHO.

Moak