Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bearshare Shut Down by RIAA

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.

269

Pichu0102 writes "According to WebProNews, Bearshare has been shut down by the RIAA." From the article: " Online file-sharing service BearShare, along with operators Free Peers Inc., is packing it up due to a $30 million settlement with the recording industry. The conditions of the settlement were agreed to by the P2P company to avoid further copyright infringement litigation."

cancel ×

269 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

psh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15277944)

when does it end?

lol (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15277948)

who actually uses bear share anyway?

Re:lol (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277958)

currently... no one.

May 6: Prostitute Schedule @ MBOT in San Francisco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278236)

Like Las Vegas, San Francisco offers prostitution as a tourist attraction. If you want to buy some prostitution services (i.e., hand job, blow job, or full sexual intercourse), you need to merely walk through the doors of the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater (MBOT), located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California.

Check out the prostitute schedule for May 6, 2006 at the MBOT [fuckedcompany.com] .

The prostitute schedule is updated daily.

Unlike Las Vegas, San Francisco does not regulate prostitution. So, the MBOT heartily welcomes everyone -- including HIV-positive customers.

Re:lol (4, Funny)

secolactico (519805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277963)

I remember bearshare vaguely. Wasn't that a gnutella client with built-in spyware?

Re:lol (5, Funny)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277972)

I think you mean "with advertising support".

Re:lol (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278023)

I remember bearshare vaguely. Wasn't that a gnutella client with built-in spyware?

IIRC, it was yet another gnutella client, which also turned your computer into a web server with a browseable listing of your shared files.

Re:lol (2, Informative)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278052)

Well appearantly a lot of people still use it. How else could they have 4.2 million dollars earned with installing spyware?

Don't know is this a reason to laugh.

But gnutella network? not even g2? cry....

Re:lol (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278279)

Yet it worked better than Shareaza, which had access to both gnutella and G2.

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278130)

>who actually uses bear share anyway?

File and virus sharers....

It doesnt matter how many used it (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278133)

It is still a hit against data freedom, and yet another win for the 'opressive movement' and 'assumed guilt'.

uh huh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15277956)

yarg

And in other news..... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15277970)

...today a new startup called ShareBear P2P was just formed....film at 11.

so what you're saying is... (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277975)

I just heard some sad news on slashdot - P2P/Warez appBearshare was found dead in their New York colo this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss them- even if you didn't enjoy downloading britney spears songs or installing bonzai buddy, there's no denying their contributions to FREE music. Truly a DMCA icon.

Why spare the big fish? (4, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277978)

The Emule network is bigger. Why spare it? I have just checked it out and find that the available files now are 677.5 million with about 11 million users. Heck, this beast is huge!

Re:Why spare the big fish? (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277998)

Some of the index servers have been seized [slashdot.org] recently.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (0)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278054)

> Some of the index servers have been seized recently.

You say recently, and I'm in no way suggesting you're incorrect, but I'll have to take your word for it, given than Slashdot doesn't put the year on its webpages. Is there a reason for this, or is it just an oversight?

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

enrgeeman (867240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278095)

Yes, there's a reason. The full date is in the URL.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (4, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278266)

OMG, the URLs are not Y2.1K compliant. Whatever will Slashdot users do in the 2099/2100 rollover and afterward? They'll be all confoozled when they can't tell whether a DMCA article was posted in 2006 or 2106! The sky will fall, cats will be sleeping with dogs, and men will be marrying men. Oh the horror!

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

tchuladdiass (174342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278109)

* given than Slashdot doesn't put the year on its webpages
The article does say Wednesday, Feb 22. The last time Feb 22 was on a Wednesday was in 1995.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278168)

February 22nd was also on a Wednesday in 2006.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278310)

Yeah, why are there no years on the dates? Cheap Y2K bugfix?

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278118)

That was february of this year (the linked article [slyck.com] has the date).

I agree, not including the year with slashdot stories/comments is stupid.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278221)

You realize you can change your date settings, right?

It showed up as 2006-02-22 for me. ;)

Re:Why spare the big fish? (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278123)

When you're logged in, go here: http://yro.slashdot.org/users.pl?op=edithome [slashdot.org]

The very first drop down box is: Date/Time Format

You can change that & /. will show whatever variation on day, date, month, year, and/or time that you could want.

and if you do a quick search, you'll find references to 2006 in the thread.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278125)

Uh, no year?
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Feb 22, ,'06 12:11 PM

That '06 would be 2006 in case you are wondering and if you wanted to back it up with something from the linked article from the linked story:
February 21, 2006

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278126)

You say recently, and I'm in no way suggesting you're incorrect, but I'll have to take your word for it, given than Slashdot doesn't put the year on its webpages. Is there a reason for this, or is it just an oversight?
Razorback2 Servers Seized
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Feb 22, '06 12:11 PM
If you want the year displayed, all you have to do is configure your preferences to display it. Go to Preferences -> Homepage -> Date/Time Format and select one of the options that includes the information you want. Problem solved.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278177)

> If you want the year displayed, all you have to do is configure your preferences to display it.

So if you share a link with someone, they have to create an account to get a proper date display?

This has been brought up before, but the slashbot admins have never fixed it. Apathy or incompetence, take your pick.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278040)

If you do some lookups on the IPs and corresponding owners of some of the most popular eMule servers (Untouchable 2.0, for instance), you'll see that they're owned by anti-piracy firms. They are most likely logging and building evidence for further litigation by the RIAA.

I imagine they see it as being more worthwhile to their cause to moniter these networks and sue users than shut them down and risk a more secure/anonymous service replacing them.

Be very careful what servers you allow your client to connect to; always doublecheck who owns them and their corresponding nameservers.

Re:Why spare the big fish? (1)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278100)

afaik emule aren't so obviously pushing money out of the system.
there's nothing for the riaa to get from here.

the bear that shared the shit had a different background on this :)

Re:Why spare the big fish? (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278105)

From TFA:
BearShare was among several P2P service to receive cease-and-desist letters from the RIAA in September of last year. Others include Warez P2P, Limewire, eDonkey, and Soulseek, all of whom have not yet reached a settlement.


Anyways, shutting down these businesses won't actually kill their networks. I can't think of any networks that are centralized like Napster used to be.

So ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15277979)

The RIAA guys are paying the Bearshare company 30m right? As a compensation for redtape strongarm tactics?

WebProNews (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277989)

I can't be the only one to notice... WebPronEws.

Re:WebProNews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278009)

well...

we'll always have Paris, err Peers.... (1)

gr8gatzby (624204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277994)

wonder if i can get me $26 back....

RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277997)

But different from the times of Teddy Roosevelt, this time they are hiding behind outdated intellectual property laws from the last century - the times when something was reproducable and distributable at great cost. The cost of reproduction and distribution of intellectual property items (mainly songs, text, publications etc) have taken a deep dive, but prices have not. They want to preserve this profit margin, and they are maintaining a rightful face because of the a century old laws.

But in fact, what they are doing is a new style of Robber Baron practice.

We need a new Teddy Roosevelt.

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278038)

Just because the cost per unit is zero, doesn't mean that the creators forfeit all rights to a ROI. It still cost money to make the damn thing, cover the losses from all the shit music people don't buy. I propose a scale of decreasing cost over time, with the work becoming public domain after a certain amount of revenue.

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1)

Tankko (911999) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278101)

Nice idea, but, how much money? If I create some new and cool that everyone loves, I can only make $1M? $10M? $100M? How much is too much? Is that profit or net? What if, like a movie, it cost me $100M to make, then how much before it goes PD?

Remember, people investing in things to make money, not to break even, and a healthy creative environment needs to allow people to fail, or they will never take chances, which mean investors need to make 5 or 6 times what they put into something.

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278276)

Nice idea, but, how much money? If I create some new and cool that everyone loves, I can only make $1M? $10M? $100M? How much is too much? Is that profit or net? What if, like a movie, it cost me $100M to make, then how much before it goes PD?


If you make a big budget movie, you will make sure that all but the savvy established actors will be promised "net points" because big-studio movies never turn a profit. Salary and bonuses to the production studio are accounted as "cost" and by the time they extract all the gross profit, there IS No net profit. That's how movies generally work, so saying that a movie will profit is just silly. It's almost as bad of a scam (but not quite as bad) as how record labels treat artists.

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278213)

Yes that business model is obsolete.I expect now that there is no way to protect movies and music there just won't be anymore of it.
Truthfully there will be more,its just that there won't be an industry doing it.It will be artists and philanthropists under a greatly different mom and pop business model.Songs free but still money touring.If noone comes to see you, get a different career,you werent any good.Movies still make money in the theatre just like they did before vhs and beta.Movies didn't get better from increased revenue,just glitzier.In fact they got worse.
These robber barons are in their death throes.dinosaurs wallowing in the tar.
NEXT!

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278277)

Oh please, get over yourself. People have been saying this for nearly 10 years. Nothing's changed, and it likely won't anytime soon.

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278261)

Just because the cost per unit is zero, doesn't mean that the creators forfeit all rights to a ROI. It still cost money to make the damn thing . . .

Badfinger: No Dice; Cost recovered and reasonable profits made decades ago. Current cost: $16. Cost to trade p2p: $0. Resonable expected current return on current investment value: $0.

. . .cover the losses from all the shit music people don't buy.

I have a simple plan to alleviate most of that loss.

I propose a scale of decreasing cost over time, with the work becoming public domain after a certain amount of revenue.

This changes the whole legal philosophy from a rigth to copy into a right to generate revenue. There is no such thing as a right to generate revenue, nor should there be. That would be Evil(tm).

And the old system of 14 years right to copy renewable for another 14 if it was still worth it to you worked just fine and was easier and cheaper for everyone to administrate, without the government poring over your books all the time, and the subsequent necessity to cook the books in retaliation.

KFG

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278093)

The loss of Eldred_v._Ashcroft [wikipedia.org] was bad enough. Essentially Congress now has unlimited power.

Having Supreme Court Justicies like Ruth Bader Ginsburg [wikipedia.org] doesn't help. She and her mother are outspoken attorneys in favor of unlimited IP rights and unlimited congressional powers. Remember kids, if you extend a law for 50 years every 10 years, ad infinitum, that's not "unlimited"!

Now we're seeing things like the JRMI Model Train SDK [sourceforge.net] project getting sued [lwn.net] (1/2 pg. down) for $300,000.00 for infringing patents. The impact of this kind of suit on small software developers, whether free or closed, will be devastating.

And the DMCA [lwn.net] getting new provisions that treat IP violations like drug crimes...forfiture of property! That's right, if little Bobby downloads a song from the internet, the RIAA can seize your house, car, property, etc.

Yay America! The land of freedom and liberty!

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278384)

>Yay America! The land of freedom and liberty!

yes, but only if your a top exec at a top coorperation, or a celeberty

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278141)

Sorry - but your premise seems rather faulty to me. The fall in cost of reproduction and distribution seems to me to make copyright laws more relevant than less so. When it was expensive to reproduce original works, the incentive to do so is minimal and copyright laws didn't matter very much unless you happened to have the rather large capital investment sitting there in the form of a Linotype machine and a web-fed printing press. With modern technologies reducing such costs, the incentive to copy becomes much greater.

No, what we have now is a classic black market situation. With the price of the goods controlled at artificially high levels through taxation or regulation there will always be an underground trade in the goods in question, whether it be in alcohol, drugs or music. There is really no way to prevent it unless you find a strong technological countermeasure.

Public =Invertebrates on parade. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278306)

His premise is faulty because the ONE thing that would correct the situation. NO ONE will do! STOP BUYING THE DAMN SHIT, and STOP COPYING IT TOO! At least with the "robber barons" one could argue that what they controlled was necessary. The same can't be said for anything that's produced by the content producers. Wanted maybe, but not NEEDED!

a new Teddy Roosevelt (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278145)

Dont hold your breath for one. No one has the balls for it. ( and i dont blame them, with the way things work now )

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278147)

The real problem is the wonderfully corrupt US government who is making these intellectual property laws in the first place. Anyone can get laws passed if they throw enough money at important members of congress.

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278202)

. . .they are maintaining a rightful face because of the a century old laws.

Actually, under the century old laws The Beatles would now be in the public domain.

KFG

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (2, Informative)

mindtriggerz (914619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278229)

That's a little bit inacurate. TR really didn't do as much trust-busting as most people think. He favored regulation of monopolies, and used the threat of breaking them up to get them to swollow regulation.
OTOH, Taft did more trustbusting, but was fat and innefective otherwise.

Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278379)

RIAA = New entourage of robber barons

The RIAA (unlike, say, Standard Oil back in the day, etc) is just a trade association, acting on behalf of its member companies, who in turn act on behalf of the people who hired them to handle a portion of their business affairs: the artists who want to publish their music and get paid for it. Your "robber barons" are Bono, KT Tunstall, Celine Dion, Slipknot, 50 Cent, and every other artist that uses an RIAA-member company to deal with the money side of their publishing.

Are you really comparing a relative monopoly on, say, energy distribution, mining, or rail transport with a trade association made up of hundreds of publishing companies representing thousands of artists?

Further, all you have to do is just not consume the music by these artists you obviously hate. After all, they are the ones that expressly chose to have a company handle their publishing, and to make use of their copyrights on the work they produce. OK, so you hate that... great! That means that you must also, if you have any intellectul honesty, have no interest in being entertained by someone who so annoys you with their business decisions. After all, from the tone of so many conversations one hears, there must by thousands of stellar musicians who have no interest in making a living from their recordings, or in protecting their rights... so, surely somewhere in that range of non-profit musicians (or, musicians willing to hope you'll send some money when you download a "free" copy of their work) that will replace, for you, the stupid, annoying, robber-baron musicians you don't really like anyway.

After all, music is a natural resource, just like oil, and it's being controlled by Evil Robber Barons! What? It's up to the musician to decide if they agree with you, and want to give their work away, or sell it through a different pricing model? How likely is it that you're rationally persuading the artist to see things differently when you're ripping them off, contrary to the very business model they've chosen to use to make a living? Don't like the choice your favorite new musician made? Choose another musician to amuse you since you're too cheap to spend a single damn dollar for a song. Really, "Robber Barons." Amazing.

Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (4, Insightful)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278000)

I first learned about BearShare and LimeWire aroud the same time. Mid-2000 if memory serves. Napster had recently "gone down" and I was still in the middle of my "wow- I missed 100's of years worth of awesome music" phase.

Ok, so here come the "RIAA is evil" rants. I can accept that (after all, this is /.). However, please consider:

  • One of the major anti-RIAA arguments around these parts is that they don't actually do anything to benefit anyone. I agree 100%. But that said, how can we cry over a company which made ad revenues based on pirated content? Scum versus scam: who cares who wins? We are the losers.

  • In six years, I could have downloaded more music than I will ever have the time to listen to. Long before BearShare went down, tons of new p2p services appeared. The RIAA can keep playing "whack-a-mole" for the next 100 years (and I'm sure they intend to) but "Joe User" will *still* be "illegally" downloading and sharing the "Black album" no matter how many times the drummer of Metallica cries about it.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278094)

Definitely fair points, the only thing that really makes me uneasy is that Bearshare did not infringe anyone's copyright (the spyware is another matter) yet they still went down in court; why not go after the phone companies for transferring the data next? It's like when they caught a car thief (or whatever random criminal it was) using terrorism legislation - the person wasn't a terrorist, even if they were a criminal, therefore it's a misuse of the legal system.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (0, Troll)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278303)

makes me uneasy is that Bearshare did not infringe anyone's copyright (the spyware is another matter) yet they still went down in court; why not go after the phone companies for transferring the data next?

Because 99% of Bearshare's activity was piracy, and 99% of the phone company's activity is legitimate.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278107)

I am not afraid of any **AA, because I don't infringe on copyright. If they came after me by mistake, I would've taken them to court, just like I take anyone to court, who comes after me by mistake, and they would ended up paying me money.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (5, Insightful)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278375)

Sorry, man. I love your attitude, and I think you are 100% correct idealogically, but that's not really how it would work. Unless you have a fair amount of money to start off with, (in the tens of thousands or more) you'll have a tough time finding a lawyer that will take this without being paid up front. It's not like you spilled hot coffee on your vagina and are suing McDonald's for $30 million. Many decent lawyers would jump at a case like that, because there is a reasonable chance that they could make bank on it. 25% of $30 million is a nice paycheck. No, in your case, the lawyer knows that the **AA will fight the case tooth and nail, regardless of whether or not they have a case. Chances are, their lawyers, which are not working on contengiency, are very, very good. They can drag it out to take up thousands of hours of your lawyers' time over a couple years. What's more, even if you do win a countersuit, a jury isn't going to award you $30 million out of sympathy. You didn't really lose anything except your time. No deaths or mutilated body parts that will make the jury feel sorry for you. No, at best, you can hope to have your legal fees reimbursed, which isn't going to be even close to 25% of $30 million. Maybe a couple hundred thousand, which your lawyer will gladly take. And there's not even a good chance of that happening.

No, my friend, you would have to pay a large retainer up front. Very large. And chances are, you would not see anything from any of that. Technically, you could win your case, but you will ultimately lose money. Yes, the system is screwed up and unfair, and the **AA knows that. Unfortunately, they are smart, and that's why they use these tactics.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (2, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278138)

The reason that the RIAA and the MPAA are so dangerous is not because of a bunch of lawsuits or their gangsterism (although those are bad enough) it's because of the truly bad law for which they've been largely responsible. I couldn't care less if they want to keep distribution rights to crummy modern music ... I do however care when they create laws (and the DMCA didn't just happen because Congress thought it was a good idea, the media companies basically paid for it) that negatively impact everyone, in virtually every industry. That makes them reckless at best, treasonous at worst, and so far as I'm concerned they have no right to lay any claim upon me, or anyone else, when it comes to what they so inaptly term "piracy". I sincerely hope that Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen and all their successors wake up one day in a giant handbasket on final approach to Hell. It's where they belong.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (2, Insightful)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278169)

The reason that the RIAA and the MPAA are so dangerous is...because of the truly bad law for which they've been largely responsible.

I agree 100%. Let me rephrase "point 2":

The USA (a 90% wonderful place) has quite a few "dumb laws" on the books- most put there by crooked goons with corrupt motives. However, we the people have *always* responded to these laws with passive resistance: we ignore them. See also:

  • Casual marijuana smokers.
  • Shakira fans downloading her latest single.
  • Speeding past that "dead part" of town at 3am.

Let them pass their laws. And let the people ignore them. Remember: they can't afford to keep ALL 300 MILLION of us in jail no matter how much money they print.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278332)


No they can't but when nearly everyone is guilty of something, then they can selectively enforce the laws on those they dislike. Cause enough trouble and the law will be enforced, just for you.

Best fight the new laws every which way you can. That said though, you do have a good point. A law is what certain people think. It isn't something you have to obey.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278154)

You're missing the big picture.

No one really cares about bear share. I'll grant you that.

On the other hand, they were the pipe, not the infringer. If a criminal walks through your yard, and the feds seize your property and house, is that really a good thing? Granted, Bear Share had a big sign in front that said "criminals welcome!"...

But the RIAA's efforts in other areas, like extending the DCMA for property and asset seizure, and federally mandated access to ISP logs on demand, could be very chilling.

The entire IP situation in the USA is getting very bad. Small software developers are getting sued by patent houses, getting sent bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars...just because some patent mill happens to have picked up a crappy patent that almost sounds like your project.

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278171)

At an first year economics class (which I took in my final year of University a few years ago) an interesting point was brought up which should be pointed out to the RIAA. If the price of a product is too high (generally honest) people will move towards non-market activities in order to obtain your product; this means they will use the black-market (allofmp3.com) or steal your product (P2P). When you're at this point you will see exponential growth in the number of people who use these non-market activities in order to obtain your product. Basically, it is my belief that people were frustrated (at this level) with the cost of music and Napster came along and showed people that there was another way to obtain music; when this happened the value of music to consumers dropped yet the costs associated with obtaining the music did not.

Now, the RIAA is looking at the situation from the perspective that the Music industry would become so much more profitable if they eliminated non-market ways to obtain the music (killing piracy), because the music industrys costs are lower (because electronic distribution is cheap yet you can still charge your artists for "Recoup" [that is broken cd's and what not]). The RIAA claims to protect artists even though artists do not want their protection ( http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story .html?id=b9e40de3-8f2e-40dd-9fca-8afc71b72e1f&k=70 622 [canada.com] ).

Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278198)

The good news is that Gnutella continues to run strong. I actively share a few Gigabytes of free content including operating systems, free music, public domain image archives and so on via gtk-gnutella [wikipedia.org] which you can acquire from the sourceforge project pages for the gtk-gnutella project [sourceforge.net] . Open up both TCP and UDP ports inbound for whatever port you choose to operate it on, and it performs at least as well as bittorrent, but with amazingly useful searching and filtering options.

The gtk-gnutella folks (who do an excellent job, but could always use more contributors [sourceforge.net] ) spend a fair amount of time working out counters for spamming and poisoning techniques.

Good ridance to the malware! (5, Insightful)

IAmAI (961807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278006)

Nothing against file sharing, but good ridance to that malware infested excuse for a file sharing app.

Never Never Never give up ..... (2, Insightful)

leoaugust (665240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278026)

Warez still lives, as it did many years ago .... Drugs still survive despite some high profile victories by the DEA.



It is the same with the RIAA. These and DEA "folks" will keep on busting some high profile targets, but the iceberg like underground trading will forever go on ...



It has always been like this, and will be, even if the "boston strangler" steps in ...

Re:Never Never Never give up ..... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278158)

Except when national bandwidth caps and mandated ISP filtering of P2P protocols are imposed by Congress as the behest of the MPAA and the "Justice Department".

Actually it's easy to stop this illegality (2, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278242)

Make it legal. After all, how much of your taxes are going on enforcement?

 

Re:Actually it's easy to stop this illegality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278253)

Haha, yeah, "I'm paying for this music with my taxes, so sod off."

Wow.. talk about time warp.. (1)

rdoherty (898394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278055)

Reading this article brings back memories of BearShare and Napster.. the only P2P programs I used.. back when they first came out (~5 years ago!)..

BearShare probably won't shut down completely and will instead become a pay-per-song music service, much like Napster did..

However, this comes at a time when Napster is returning to providing free music.. Apparently, Napster plans on offering two million major and independent-label tracks on-demand.. The catch is that users will need to pay after downloading the same track more than 5 times.

This Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278058)

I hate to see one of the best clients go.

It wasn't as popular becase of it's adware, but it was easily removed, had(and has) a wonderfull search, and dowloaded faster than any other client I've tried... and I've tried them all.

A valuable lesson (3, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278074)

Lesson 1: Don't be centralized.

Re:A valuable lesson (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278092)

2. Move to the land of muppet chefs.
3. Get some sponsors.
4. Profit!

Re:A valuable lesson (2, Informative)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278358)

I don't know how that is insightful. Gnutella is anything but a centralized network. Are you suggesting running a decentralized corporation to rake in the profits?

Like I said before... (2, Insightful)

Red Samurai (893134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278077)

No big deal at all. Bearshare is but a tiny fish in a HUGE ocean.

Nice work... (2, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278083)

Another company gone thanks to an out-of-court settlement due to RIAA's lawyer army and economical advantage. They've really found out a working model for being right regardless what a boring test in court would say. Your tool can be used to infringe on copyright, therefore it should not exist, and no one has anything to say about the lack of logic in that argument. *AA and all those companies that live on registering, then suing for patent infrigements should merge to form a Coalition of Law Abusing Powers. Now that would be really scary... :-P Corporations that harvest the economy crops on destroying things rather than constructing. Unfortunately for the media business, they need the latter today, not the former, assuming they wish to keep their customers that is. It's a funny world when you're better supported by pirates than iTunes if you wish to use your music.

Coalition of Law Abusing Powers. I like it. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278167)

So, in other words, if you get hit by those people you could legitimately say you got a dose of the C.L.A.P. The comparison with a disease is particularly appropriate, I think.

Re:Nice work... (1)

raduf (307723) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278172)



      I'm just as an illegal listener as the next guy, but let's be fair: there _is_ a difference between "your tool can be use to pirate music" and "you make most of your income because people use your tool to pirate music". I'm also pretty sure in the latter case you're inclined to make your tool better at pirating then everything else - thus actively helping the "pirates".

      The "badest" guy is no doubt still RIAA, for many things >10000$ settlements being amongst the first, but in this particular case the bear is in the wrong. How much... don't know. Unfortunately probably a lot less then 30 milion.

New Business Plan... (2, Funny)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278085)

  1. Create shady online file-sharing service.
  2. Attract attention to yourself by any means possible EXCEPT by becoming popular amongst users.
  3. Get paid 30M $ to stop your illegal activities.
  4. Profit.

Keep this one in mind kids, it's not everyday you get a 4-step solution to easy money with all 4 steps included :)

Re:New Business Plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278159)

Get paid 30M $ to stop your illegal activities.

Erm... although the linked article doesn't make this clear, I'd suggest that BearShare paid the RIAA $30 million, not the other way round...

Re:New Business Plan... (2, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278162)

Actually, there are a couple of not insignificant flaws with your steps numbered #3 and #4:

3. Pay $30M to prevent further copyright infringement lawsuits.
4. Loss.

Although step 4 could be profit if can you manage to clear more than your settlement in subscription fees, ad revenue and then selling on the personal details of your subscribers once all other operating expenses are taken into account. That probably didn't happen here though, and is unlikely to happen to the next "business" to try using this kind of business model and subsequently attracts the legal wrath of the media industry either.

Re:New Business Plan... (1)

greyduk (966196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278181)

No.... they OWE 30 million dollars.

A more detailed account of this tail. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278114)

http://slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22181 [slyck.com]
I have not used Bearshare for years.
it's just another gnutella clients.
Only with spyware the edonkey/emule network is better anyway and its open source.

Is it centralized? (1)

MScrip (944281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278115)

Isn't the point of P2P that it is Peer to Peer, computer to computer... How exactly does the RIAA stop Bearshare from working? If someone has the Bearshare software on their computer, and someone else does too, won't they still be allowed to share files? Isn't that the nature of file sharing? I remember Napster "shutting down" becuase the had to unplug their database servers... but P2P apps use each other to locate and share files. I'm a little confused on how Bearshare can be shutdown.

Re:Is it centralized? (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278204)

This is yet another high-profile "victory" in the RIAA's neverending and largely ineffective propaganda campaign. Will it have any practical effect upon the popularity of file sharing? Probably not, but the RIAA looks good, and it does set a nice precedent when it comes to suing other outfits like Limewire. Too bad there's so many nice open source multi-platform Gnutella clients out there.

If the management of the RIAA's member companies were to take a long, hard look at what the RIAA has actually accomplished (e.g., alienated the customer base, eliminated profitable new recording technologies, and given the whole business a black eye, PR-wise) they might begin to wonder about the RIAA's relevance to the modern world. Although, in truth, companies like Sony have management that is just as sleazy, and are perfectly capable of alienating customers without the RIAA's dubious assistance.

OSS clients (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278294)

They can be 'shut down' too.. Sue Sourceforge and prohibit them from hosting it ( or even put them out of business sinc ethey support all that software that 'supports terrorists'. Sure, a few will have it but the average guy wont be able to find it, which is who all these 'attacks' are for anyway.

Re:Is it centralized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278205)

Uhm, the actual data transfering is done peer to peer, but you've gotta get the peer addresses from somewhere.

Re:Is it centralized? (1)

MScrip (944281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278285)

Uhm, the actual data transfering is done peer to peer, but you've gotta get the peer addresses from somewhere.

Napster was centralized... it had lists of songs that each person had on their computers. It was easy to unplug Napster.

But, Bearshare is a true peer2peer... file lists are transfered from computer to computer, without a central location.

So, my question still remains... how can they possibly shut down Bearshare? As long as you have the client on your computer... it will work forever!

Re:Is it centralized? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278314)

Perhaps their client is rigged to not work if they aren't making money off the ads? Wouldn't surprise me.

Re:Is it centralized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278371)

Think of a torrent, then shut down the tracker.

ummm if they've ceased??? why is their website up? (2, Informative)

atarione (601740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278136)

http://www.bearshare.com/ [bearshare.com]

d/l of bs clinet still active too.. as of 12:37PM PST

Re:ummm if they've ceased??? why is their website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278189)

RTFA

Not in fact true (3, Interesting)

GillesL (896791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278197)

Considering that I went to Bearshare website... got the software and got a song "Let it be" by the Beatles... about 1 minute ago, I would say that the story is not exactly true.

Re:Not in fact true (1)

sabernet (751826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278326)

I hope you gave your PC a booster shot then cleaned it with bleach afterwards

ain't Bearshare the same as Kazaa and LimeWire in that it rots your computer from the inside to generate revenue?

Oblig Puns (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278258)

I guess they couldn't "bear" the legal fees for the case.

It was a "grizzly" trial.

The RIAA really got their fur ruffed by BearShare's actions.

Lets all give "paws" and contemplate this change in the P2P landscape.

This is the end of BearShare's "tail".

The 800lb Gorilla beat the Bear!

Re:Oblig Puns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278289)

This looks to be a "whale" of a problem!

Re:Oblig Puns (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278342)

The pun police are coming and after that list won't be taking any prisoners:)

Bastards (1)

jaafonso (886987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278301)

They killed Bearshare! You bastards!

$30 million... (1)

Avantare (573582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15278324)

who gets the money? Chuck

Re:$30 million... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278386)

All those lawyers have families to feed, you know...

Shoutcast + Streamripper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278333)

Who still uses p2p to get music?

8YOU FAI?L IT? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15278355)

the resources that when done playing become an unwanted vour ability to
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>