Is Napster Too Invasive? 23
Kyle Thomson asks: "I just left a Q&A with Hank Barry, C.E.O. of Napster (at University of Michigan). At the end, in a personal Q&A, he said that the banning of people was up to the artists, and that Napster fully complied with all requests. I then questioned him on the quick and easy ability to rejoin Napster. He said that 'the new version of Napster sprinkles bits around the hard drive. The only way to get back on is to buy a new computer.' So that leads me to the question of how invasive is Napster if it is leaving information everywhere on a hard drive?" What exactly does "sprinkling bits around the hard drive" really entail. I can see how this could mean "sprinkling random keys in your registry" but I admit to being a bit concerned by the actual description. Can anyone shed some light on this mechanism? Is it really as invasive as it sounds?
What about clones? (Score:3)
That's something I never understood... or is that what he's referring to...making it impossible to create yourself a new user? If that's the case... I go back to my question...what about the effect on clones?
What worries me is that Napster will move towards not allowing clones to connect anymore...which would suck.
---
Gtk-Napster (Score:2)
Sprinkles bits? (Score:2)
At worst I'd hope the most you'd have to do is clean out the MBR and low-level format the drive. Though IMHO, if it requires more than needing to reformat the filesystem, it may be going a bit too far.
Just my thoughts.
-----
Intel's in-chip ID (Score:1)
- Josh
Lots Of Programs Do This (Score:4)
Re:Sprinkles bits? (Score:2)
that wouldn't be the same thing, but aweful close
toast0
File monitoring utilities (Score:3)
Re:Sprinkles bits? (Score:1)
Re:Sprinkles bits? (Score:1)
Preferably one where you could run any untrusted app in a chroot jail. Is that even possible under Win32?
Under Windows 9x, the closest you could come is a separate partition. (Got Partition Magic?) But if it's "sprinkling bits", it would have to know where to look for them (Registry entries), and they'd probably show up as files anyway (otherwise Defrag would kill your Napster.) The best way to hide a file would be as a .dll in \windows\system...
-- LoonXTall
Re:Gtk-Napster (Score:4)
I really wish napster would stop this "no clones" non-sense, it would make it easier for everyone.
So do I. But you have to look at it from the business perspective. After all, all Napster's legal counsel, server farm and staff are paid for by investors that one day expect to reap some money out of this thing.
I was on Napster in August of 1999, with a V1.0 beta client. It had a little banner at the top, "Would you like to advertise here?"
This still strikes me as a good model to support their service. But even if Napster becomes a subscription-based service, the same thing applies:
Do you want clone clients available that maybe give the advertising you've sold a lesser prominance than the advertisers are expecting?
Do you want clone clients that might not be able to me managed from a subscription basis?
It's a pain in the ass, but I can fully understand their position on this matter.
What I *don't* understand is why the later clients (V2.0 Beta 6 and 7) weed out Wrapster files. Admittedly, they facilitate piracy of things other than music, but the Wrapster user is just exchanging MP3s, after all...
Can't you just see CD-burner manufacturers chasing after each other just to be able to advertise on Napster? <grin> The RIAA would pop them faster than a frog on a hotplate.
How did this get modded up? (Score:1)
The reason most people believe you can't make a new user and log on again is because napster got clever. In their newer versions, they started adding registry keys. Since the ban, all new installs check the registry keys for the old napster ID tags, and if a banned ID is present, the install/new login name fails. I got around this by writing my own napster.ini file, deleting the old registry keys, and starting clean again. This has absolutely no effect on clones. A clone with a new ID will be allowed access to the server, regardless of who the person is behind the ID.
Re:Sprinkles bits? (Score:2)
(But seriously -- installing a proper OS should be enough to prevent any crazed apps "sprinkling bits" all over your filesystem. Preferably one where you could run any untrusted app in a chroot jail. Is that even possible under Win32? [No flame intended -- I'd actually like to know if it is.])
Re:Intel's in-chip ID (Score:1)
These "sprinklings" are easy to thwart. (Score:4)
PaintShop Pro does the same "sprinking" that Napster does. You can use InCtrl for all these types of programs.
InCtrl is made by Ziff Davis, and it's free. Get it from ZDNet [zdnet.com].
Re:Is Napster too invasive? (Score:1)
Re:Technique for anywho who cares to try it (Score:1)
This already happened (Score:1)
Re:Is Napster too invasive? (Score:1)
Re:Is Napster too invasive? (Score:1)
Re:Is Napster too invasive? (Score:1)
Napster Code... (Score:1)
byte[] hd = readHardDriveContents();
if ( (hd[10312] & 0x10 == 1) && (hd[4129342] & 0x04 == 1) ) {
NapsterWuzHere = true;
}
...
Technique for anywho who cares to try it (Score:2)
"The only way to get back on is to buy a new computer." Oh, puhleeze. Even if one were a total idiot, the worst that would be necessary would be to format the disk and reinstall the OS. Any other comments from this guy should be considered in the light of his uttering this silliness.
sprinkle? buy a new computer? (Score:1)