Outing p2p clients - Classic or Dud?

How horrible, outing something that is already public. You are an idiot.

The point(s) being that (a) p2p clients are already in the crosshairs of the RIAA [and more importantly are its Users] so (b) drawing extra attention to something like this isn't doing anyone (aside from the owners of publishing rights and (c) for your well-researched information, if one searches "p2p" in Google, for example, SLSK doesn't appear in the first 100 results.

And finally, and I'm just guessing here, but if Stylus regularly reviews artists record companies track, record companies are reading Stylus.

Yeah, I don't think the issue is "outing" so much as drawing so much attention to something that it can no longer be ignored (by the p.t.b.).

BigChampagne's Eric Garland touts SoulSeek as one to watch. "It's a little geeky, but it's definitely attracting people who are serious about subcultures." Not very aesthetically pleasing thanks to a crowded desktop, it mimics key features of Audiogalaxy. "It doesn't have a Web presence or a music magazine, but it does have groups, which I think are key."

BigChampagne is a company that monitors online music listening habits, including p2p and piracy. Many music companies (and marketing companies) use their statistics to determine how to market bands. If you've seen any "this song was downloaded so much they made it the next single" articles in a music magazine, chances are that the stats came from BigChampagne. And they're talking about Soulseek in newspapers.

Your search - BigChampagne soulseek - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.

Also, you can browse today's headlines on the Google News homepage.

Yup. That's why I wrote "respectively."

The UK lawsuits earlier this year apparently included slsk users (and certainly were reported as doing so) so the authorities are well aware of it, it's not some tiny secret.

Pfork and Stylus both using the term "soulseeking" specifically instead of something more innocuous that the RIAA can just assume = KaZAa. It pisses me because I like it & I'd rather not have to go changing from service to service to avoid the cycle of:

Innovative new niche p2p service (initially created to serve a small audience i.e: slsk for electronic music fans) > becomes wildly more popular through word-of-mouth because of amount of HIGH QUALITY (rips & content) music on it > everyone & his gran now knows > search results go to shit > RIAA scares = chilling effect, users not sharing files anymore (inc. The author of the stylus piece ffs! cheers!)

I haven't even used it for a couple of months myself but the amount of chatter going on re: bittorrents/oink and other stuff I have barely even looked at makes me assume it hasn't got any more usable since then?

To be honest the tone of the piece came across a little (probably unintentionally) like "I don't care about it anymore so I won't even bother trying to not spoil it for anyone else"

Still, the acknowledgement that this is still a grey area legally (references in the article to teenage girls getting sued etc) does really make me wish that a music promotions site, however progressive, would be more aware of the need to tread carefully, not carelessly.

Comparing any industry review site to ILM feels like a bogus comparison to make.

(preview: ah ok. thanks, it's fixed now? I haven't really followed the ins & outs of the search probs lately due to some tech probs I've been having meaning I've hardly used it or downloaded much recently.)

not that I'm going to grab the whole internet in one afternoon, but rarities. Yeah!

Despite me giving Nick (why I'm using 'The author' I dunno, he posts here after all) a hard time I did like the piece. I'm not sure you even need to download to burn out sometimes though, which seems to be more what the article is about. And record-store-assitant style bitterness, and ageing!

I think most people younger enough to not remember there not being an internet care far, far less about dilettantism and just ride the waves where p2p is concerned. The channel is wide open for them to be dilettantes until they find something that absorbs/obsesses them on a deeper, less superficial level.

I'd still rather not lose slsk all the same, however many p2p/YSI/Torrents/Gmails/etc abound for alternative methods of checking stuff out.

I bet they wish they could just go back in time to the '50's and just sell vinyl in stores, with *gasp* listening posts!

I would imagine the RIAA is fully aware of SLSK, but they won't waste their time with it (i.e. pursuing litigation against its Users) if they have bigger, Torrent-size, fish to fry.

UK newspapers, including The Guardian, listed Soulseek users as being amongst those that the BPI were taking action against so they will go after Soulseek users.

Until now I've always written Soulseek in an ungoogleable fashion on the internet but I think I'll stop now. Ehy shouldn't Nick, or whoever, be able to discuss Soulseek, or any other web page or service? Bcz y're worried that you'll not be able to get free music anymore? Tough luck, it's out there, it's no secret, and journalists can write about it if they want.

All I'm saying is, this is the last straw in a series of last straws (e.g. Stylus: Why do you persist in publishing crap like this?).

Censor? No. Boycott? Yes.

then i'm not interested in your article pal.

I haven't, nor has anyone else, assailed the author.

It's a/the site's decision to publish/post an article which draws more unnecessary/unwanted attention to a publicly-available application a handful of us have enjoyed over the past x-odd years, and would like to continue enjoying even if its status is only purported[ly] below-ground. And if I (as well as a handful of others upthread) don't take to kindly to their publishing decision and express an opinion embodying my/our displeasure, so be it.

It's quite clear: you were looking for an excuse to say 'OMG STLYUS DROOLS, PITCHFORK 4EVA!11!" and you found/invented one.

To an extent, you're right (albeit dead wrong on the PITCHFORK 4EVA!11! and invention bits). Again, my personal choice to boycott Stylus is based on this article coming at the end of a series of last straws (see above).

If you heart Stylus and hate P'Fork: hurrah for you, mate. But I'm not the Pied Piper (or do you think I have some sort of Bill "Boycott France" O'Reilly clout?): if others choose to boycott any site, that's their choice. Just as this is mine.

Who said, much less implied, the RIAA doesn't already know about SLSK?

It's more about whether repeatedly mentioning Soulseek will bring it higher on RIAA's hit list.

Personally, I'm just hoping Soulseek will have the balls to sue Stylus for copyright infringement. (nothing personal)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000530B0.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

What copyright infringement? And wouldn't the makers of an application whose only real use is sharing copyrighted material look a bit, uh, idiotic in that situation?

In the course of this thread I, and several others, have noted that I should have called this thread, "Drawing Attention to..." rather than "Outing..." and should have written "The outing of drawing of additional unnecessary/unwanted attention to what was more a less a word of mouth phenomenon..." --- because ultimately that's what I meant (and have repeated as much a half-dozen times thus far...).

More ad hominem. Priceless. Glad you could contribute.

Out me as a Harvard grad.

...anyone who thinks [Stylus'] intention was to "out" or even to "draw attention to" [Soulseek]...doesn't have a very good grasp on how the world works...

Let me be the first to answer the thread's mistitled question: Classic.

I'll be at Isolée, with a Regular compilation in one hand and a battery-powered glowstick in the other.

-- Mickey (modestmicke...), September 19th, 2005 7:28 PM.

And yet you're still here -- 20 hours later.

See, you like me.

You really, really like me.

vs.

http://i.esmas.com/image/0/000/002/671/ESCI0414_SPIDERMAN_N.jpg
slsk

http://www.crankycritic.com/archive00/xmen/images/storm.jpg

vs

http://bushong.net/dawn/about/college/cs184/project/teacup.jpg

seems like a good place to bring this up. is there anyone who has had success with installing slsk on the tiger OS? if so, please refer me to appropriate explanations. much thanks.

Apple chief executive
Steve Jobs has accused the music industry of being greedy. His comments were geared toward the possibility that record companies might try to change pricing for songs when their contracts come up for renewal with Apple's iTunes music service.

At a news conference in Paris, Jobs noted that if record labels want to raise prices, it would be motivated by greed rather than by interest in consumers. He added that if the prices were to rise, it is probable that there would be increases in piracy. And in that case, he said, "everybody loses."

Price War

At the same time that aggressive antipiracy measures are being implemented by the
Recording Industry Association of America, record companies have been struggling with changing their business models to focus less on CD sales.

After disparaging remarks about the success of the music industry's strategies, Jobs also dampened some enthusiasm for the future of music on mobile handsets.

"It is not clear that buying songs over the air makes economic sense," Jobs noted at the news conference. Speculation has run rampant on whether Apple would be launching a company-made iPod phone, but Jobs declined to confirm or deny whether such a product is even in development.

Model Citizen

Music pricing has been an increasingly hot topic as MP3 players proliferate and music services broaden. Because Apple still is on top in terms of market share, it is likely that Jobs' comments could have an effect on future pricing strategies around the industry.

"The fact is, you can't argue with success," said IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky. "If you look at how strong the iPod and the iTunes service are with consumers, then you have to acknowledge that Apple knows what it's doing. The music industry might want to keep that in mind."

The industry might also have to recognize that alternate pricing strategies have not made much of a dent in iTunes' popularity even though songs might be available for less money elsewhere. It might be dramatic to say that people will resort to piracy, but significant changes to iTunes' pricing might impact the market, Kusnetzky said.

GROW UP STEVIE THE 60'S WAS OVER 10 YEARS AGO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW ANYWAY+ ULTERIOR MOTIVES YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR HURTING GOOD PEOPLES

I'll be at Isolée, with a Regular compilation in one hand and a battery-powered glowstick in the other.

First up, Stylus didn't have an intention, it's inert, it's a website, the only intention involved in the article was mine in writing it. Sure, Todd published it, but it was completely unedited, and yeah, he may have had an intention regarding it but I imagine it was just "let's publish a good piece of writing that people may relate to and debate".

Secondly, in quoting me you cut out a bit in the middle and juxtaposed two clauses which don't actually refer to each other - the "doesn't have a very good understanding of the world" bit relates directly to this passage; "that I've somehow endangered someone's illegal fix of free music". The "authorities" know about slsk, it's been discussed in print media, it's all the fuck over ILM which has been quoted and referenced numerous times in such obscure texts as The Guardian and NYT.

This bit; "hasn't read it properly" refers to the intention of the article being about "outing slsk" OR NOT, as the case may be.

So it’s your contention that Stylus is but a passive receptacle? That it lacks, that is to say has nearly zero, interest in what it publishes? That it is but an “inert” conduit for your and others’ streams of consciousness? Am I misquoting and/or misconstruing what you said, again?

You acknowledge that Todd…may have had an intention regarding it… albeit in a seemingly innocuous-unintentional yet simultaneously self-serving good piece of writing way. Which itself is subject to debate. (Nick Southall in completely unedited shockah!)

But let’s return to the lacking intent/inert contention for a moment. To my mind, it begs the question: Is anyone steering the U.S.S. (or H.M.S.) Stylus in a particular direction? Or are telling the ILM audience that all of the Stylus staffers and contributors wander aimlessly aboard the decks of the same unintentional frigate?

Are you ultimately (and seriously?) suggesting that Stylus had no intention of free-riding on slsk’s trademark(s), goodwill or popularity by co-opting its name and logo for this article? It’s all just a happy accident?

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articleimages/article050919.jpg

Really?

Is English different in the UK? Although “or” is most often thought of as a disjunctive, when used like that (above) it actually becomes a conjunctive. So if you say “anyone who thinks A, B, C, or D is X and Y” the X and Y refers to “anyone who thinks” and the A,B,C,D is just a list delineating what it is you may think. Though the clauses I left out are also modified by the final clause they are only modified commutatively.

The "authorities" know about slsk, it's been discussed in print media, it's all the fuck over ILM which has been quoted and referenced numerous times in such obscure texts as The Guardian and NYT.

This bit; "hasn't read it properly" refers to the intention of the article being about "outing slsk" OR NOT, as the case may be.

Again, I don’t want to misquote you or misconstrue what you said “OR NOT,” so I’ll ask directly: Are you suggesting that I (and others) should find what you and Stylus did less irritating because others have done the same or similar things? Even if they did so by degrees of separation (e.g. The Guardian or the NYT referencing ILM which frequently references slsk)?

Tell you what, dig up the innumerable times The Guardian or the NYT referenced slsk (twice, in the aggregate, by my maths) or put its logo in its pages (or front page) and I’ll stop subjecting your article and Stylus’ editorial non-decisions to public debate.

You know, Nick? Ultimately, you and your Stylus/ILM cohorts are right. You don’t actually mention slsk or where to download it or the names of any other p2p clients in that article.

So really, how anyone could tie the title of said article (repeated four times if one counts the left-side navigation), the large images of the p2p’s official, trademarked logo on the front page of the website as well as in your article’s header (the latter featuring an, at best, ambiguous title), the eight times you mention variations of “download” (coupled with the various and sundry times you allude to the p2p client’s functionality as well as the acquisition of mp3s, in general) in the text of your article – how anyone could tie all of those loose, clearly unrelated ends together and find themselves drawn to slsk’s doorstep really is beyond the grasp of all but a few of mankind’s leading minds.

Don't you understand what this means? An executive at the RIAA will be innocently perusing the Web, thinking to himself I wonder what is happening with the exciting world of independent music. I shall consult Stylus Magazine! ...and what does he see? Why, the very logo of Soulseek itself! What happens next we all know. Neurons will start firing furiously, and he will remember: I forgot to send out the memo about our next plan of action!

Next thing you know: arrests, lawsuits, death, rape, anarchy -- the very face of hell itself.

How dare you, Stylus. How dare you.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&hs=dPV&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=+site:www.guardian.co.uk+guardian.co.uk+kazaa

Ugh this thread.

(yeah but who cares about KaZAa?)

I'd prefer we reach around and remove each other's.

Soulseek in the Guardian... One of these was front page. Five further mentions in their media section (but you have to be a subscriber to there webb content to see it.)

One of these links sez "The original legal actions launched in October last year were the first time that British labels had followed the lead of their American counterparts in suing individual filesharers for swapping music tracks over the internet. At the time, they said they were targeting "major uploaders" - those who make libraries of thousands of tracks available to share on peer to peer networks such as Kazaa, Soulseek and Grokster." The BPI have already taken people to court for using slsk, so I'm sure the RIAA know it too.

The Recording Industry Assn. of America declined to comment Monday, but last week it sent cease-and-desist letters to EDonkey, BearShare, LimeWire, WinMX, Warez and two other firms. The entertainment industry is already suing Grokster and Streamcast Networks Inc. in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

"There is considerable momentum out there because the current peer-to-peers in my view would be foolish to ignore what's taking place," said Robert Summer, chairman of IMesh.com Inc., which settled with the recording industry before June's ruling. "They will be pursued."

IMesh agreed to pay $4.1 million and stop its millions of users from making unauthorized copies of songs. Those sorts of restrictions generally end up driving away users, who flock to file-sharing networks for free music, movies and other digital goods. The program distributors give their software away and make money by selling ads.

Both the file-sharing networks and the entertainment industry recognize that if new online offerings are too cumbersome or restrictive, users may turn to overseas services or to technologies such as BitTorrent, which are harder to control.

Even if all the companies comply, piracy rates might not change much. That's because the programs that sit on users' computers find each other on a variety of networks, and those programs can be made by different people.

"None of these companies are essential in the mix," said Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne, a Beverly Hills firm that monitors the networks. "They're afterthoughts."

EDonkey CEO Sam Yagan said his company was "exploring" ways to make money and avoid the wrath of the entertainment industry. He said he did not know whether the next version of EDonkey software would use filters, a payment scheme or other means for cracking down on piracy, but that some fix "is certainly imminent."

"It's important to us that we're operating within the letter of the law and the spirit of the law," he said, "and up until [the Supreme Court ruled] I was confident that we were."

"BearSharing"

http://www.nobeliefs.com/washingtonnews/bio-suit.gif

"None of these companies are essential in the mix," said Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne, a Beverly Hills firm that monitors the networks. "They're afterthoughts."

None of these companies are essential in the mix?

Beg to differ, anyone?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050922/tc_nm/media_p2p_shutdowns_dc

highlights:

Wed Sep 21, 9:21 PM ET

LOS ANGELES/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Popular file-sharing site WinMX.com ceased operating and the New York office of another, eDonkey.com, appeared to be closed, in the continuing legal fallout among underworld peer-to-peer music services, industry sources and users said on Wednesday.

The turmoil among file-sharing networks follows the landmark ruling by the
U.S. Supreme Court in June that held anyone who distributes a device used to infringe copyright is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by others.

In the wake of the decision, the trade group
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) last week sent out "cease-and-desist" letters to seven file-sharing groups. A spokeswoman for the RIAA declined to name the targets.

Popular file-sharing sites BearShare, eDonkey and WinMX were reportedly among the targets.

The decentralized nature of most peer-to-peer file-sharing software makes it uncontrollable once it is released over the Internet. However, shutting off sites where users first download the software may strangle the flow of new users.

"There's certainly a big realignment of networks going on after the RIAA letters. Everyone is going to see a fallout since the ruling is making it tough for these companies to exist," said Marc Morgenstern, vice president for Loudeye, during the Digital Hollywood conference in Santa Monica.

An eDonkey executive with a Boston phone number was not immediately available to comment. Industry sources said the phone in the New York office had been disconnected...

At the FOMC summit, Cary Sherman of the RIAA noted with glee that iMesh would be relaunching itself in a week or two as a "legitimate" download service ... and that it would be implementing community and "dating service" features as well. *rolls eyes*

And as someone mentioned in a different mailing list, eDonkey's office is in New Jersey, not New York, per an interview with Slyck.com.