First this article
KaZaA poisoned with salted files?
By John Leyden
Posted: 28/08/2002 at 11:50 GMT


Is there a conspiracy to flood the KaZaA file-sharing network with bad files?

In recent weeks, several Reg readers have told us of a growing pattern of 'looped', incomplete MP3 files (posing as full tracks) being offered for download on KaZaA.com. In other instances, songs are intentionally misnamed.

One reader had to download 63 tracks, and then sort through the salted and mislabelled files in order to successfully download all the songs from an album containing 12 songs.

A spokesperson for Sharman Networks, the firm behind the KaZaA service, told us it's had few complaints about the issue, nor has there been a disruption of the KaZaA Media Desktop software.

Although there are some posts about the problem on bulletin boards and on Usenet the issue is better described as an irritant rather than something more serious.

That said, some people feel strongly about the issue, and conspiracy theories are circulating that the Recording Industry Ass. Of America (RIAA), is trying to cause KaZaA to "implode with bad files".

The antipathy of the RIAA is well documented through numerous lawsuits and attempts to sponsor bills which would legalise hacking attacks by copyright holders against P2P.

Those laws haven't passed yet; and this, combined with our distrust of conspiracy theories, leads us elsewhere in the hunt for the P2P Saboteur.

It's a pissed-off rock star what's to blame. Our money is on Elton John, but others point the finger at Radiohead's Thom Yorke. Managing high speed servers passes the time between TV appearances, after all. ®
Source:http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26838.html

So i asked myself can i find these files on KaZaA, Morpheus,etc..
I searched for the new Dixie Chicks album "Home" and found all twelve songs ,however out of twelve i was only able to play two.
Using Sound Forge as well as Magix Music the anatomy of the file indicated partial music and then silence and then partial music.
Yes i tried saving the file in different formats, but still ended up with partial music as well as partial silence.
Okay maybe it was my system so i had a friend try and his results were the same as mine.
In addition the files were misnamed, Is this a coincidence? I think not.
I ALSO FOUND the REAL FILES for the same album in question on the same file sharing groups as mentioned above so if someone is determined to get a specific album they will get it with a few speed bumps in the way.

First of all, why use Kazaa when you can get get KazaaLite? No adware or anything.

Yeah, this is becoming a problem, in WinMX and other programs too. Some of the times its accidental, as in the other users don't know they have the wrong file and it get distributed to others. Other times its bored ppl tryin to get a kick outta wasting other ppl's time. The way I go about it is to sort out the search results by their track time, and download the ones with common name AND time. Or go to one of those official music sites and get the official track from there.

That should minimize the chance for errors and still make dling fast and easy.

1st : Try to keep the posts within legal boundaries , for the sake of the forum

2nd : I can understand your furstration Lets just say that if i used KazzaA, for the same reasons, i would have found myself in the exact same situation several times

When I think I'm right there is abosolutely nothing wrong with the legal bounderies on which sspade100 started the thread (at least for dutch laws and while the server is located in the Netherlands I think the dutch law is apropriet here)
It is however illegal to upload files to a network (see disclamer: All rights in the recorded works and in the recorded performance reserved. No lending! Unauthorized duplication, lease, public performance and broadcasting prohibited)
However in the Netherlands it is allowed to create a copy of recording for your own use (studying)
The strange thing will be when i make a copy of cd #1 for myself it is fully legal but when sombody asks me if I want to make a copy for him from the same cd it is illegal. When he goes behind my computer and presses the return button to start the copy operation it is however legal because he made the copy now.
Dutch Laws


(I'm not a lawyer or something, but i read an article about the music industry and copying a while ago in a dutch computer magazine and this was what it said)

You are probably right, i wouldn't know a thing about Dutch laws.

The thing is though, that none of the above applies here .. sspade said he downloaded from kazaa some songs which he didn't clarify whether he owns or not. (not owning the original album and downloading songs from the album in mp3 format would be illegal right? )

Well, when I understand the article right, it is completely legal to download songs form who you don't own the originals.
However it is illegal to upload the songs.
So anyone (at least in the Netherlands) who uses Kazaa and doesn't share anything is completely legal.
When you start to share you are illegal.

I would very much to read that article, because it contradicts all I know about copyright and Dutch law in general.

By Dutch law it is agreed that you can have one or more backup copies for personal use, provided you own the original. You are not allowed to give away or sell these backups and if you sell your originals you have to either hand over your backups as well, or destroy these backups.

Taking the above into account, you can only have a backup of music on your PC if you own the original. You can, however, make your own compilation, provided that for each of the songs in the compilation you own an original CD on which this song is represented. By buying the original, you make sure that copyrights are paid for all songs on that CD.

This means that if you have a MP3 song (or any other format) for which no copyright was paid, you are in violation of copyright laws. In this respect it does not matter how it got onto your computer (or on a burnt CD for that matter). So, when you download a song you have not paid any copyright fees for, you are the one who is in violation. The person who uploads the files does not necessarily have to be...that all depends on how it is stored online (but that is besides the point here)

If what you say is true, how would you explain the following (hypothetical...I don't have friends ):
If I steal your stereo and display it in my home. As soon as one of my friends comes by and sees 'my' stereo and would like to have it and I say, be my guest.

According to your reasoning, my friend is not violating any laws for possessing your stereo. In your reasoning I am the only one who is in violation for distributing something that was not mine to distribute.

The morale of this story, simply put:
By possessing something you should have paid for and you didn't, you are in violation of the law.

Actually, your friend hasn't committed any offence so long as he didn't know the stereo was stolen or have grounds to suspect that it was (though he couldn't keep it, of course, against a claim by the owner since it wasn't yours to give).

Of course, this in no way affects tax's reasoning insofar as downloaded files are concerned, since, in the overwhelming majority of cases, when you download an mp3 without owning the original, you know full well that you have no right to possess a copy of that song and, for that matter that whoever uploaded it had no right to do so. Tax has just picked a bad hypothetical, that's all.

(Oh, and we all love you tax. How would we get on without the evil forum admin? )

This was the only flaw in my reasoning, as far as you can speak of a flaw (and I could of course count on you to point that out )

At IRC this was discussed and I am (and was) aware of this. But this particular rule of law is quite complicated and full of exceptions. If you buy a stolen product for a fair price, a price of which you could not suspect it was stolen, you are allowed to keep it, that is to protect the ignorant and unknowing individual.

But let's not get into that, I used the analogy to make a point and I think that point is clear (even though I cut a small corner )

http://www.zowerkt.nl/rechten/wetten...baar_maken.htm
This is a dutch site- transaltion is as follows:
In copyright laws it is not stated very clear what means the public performance of a piece. It seams that the lawmakers found that is was clear enough. There are some special cases for lending music from a library

In the copyright laws is stated that it is allowed to have a performance of a work for friends and family when it isn't a payed performance. It is then a performance where there is now authorisation required from the owner of the copyright.
And tht is good to, because otherwise you couldn't listen with your friends to a cd or read to your children a book.

Now we can determinethe word friend.

Sorry for my bad english

Ok, Luckily I read Dutch.

The piece that you mentioned deals with making music public, it does not deal with owning music of which you do not own the copyright...that for starters.

Indeed, as that article states, you are allowed to broadcast music (or video) in the privacy of your home when it is for friends or family and not for commercial purposes.

But I cannot see how you can compare this to downloading music, since downloading is not broadcasting and even if you should qualify it as broadcasting, it is not broadcasting in the privacy of your own home.

Furthermore, the broadcasting in this respect assumes you have the original to broadcast it from, so the main point of my previous reply still stands.

KaZaA LITE was used

The purpose of d/l was to show that the files i originally obtained were possibly bogus and with some perseverance i could find the real file(s) and true it cost me a little time in searching, but its the end product that counts.

whats why i use mirc to get my music

just a thought on the pollution of p2p networks with bad songs... (and i'll try to keep this legal, because i am not endorsing downloading any songs unless you own the original ;D)

since most songs that show up on p2p networks originally come from mp3 release groups (who include sfv files to do consistancy checks) could it be possible for a p2p network to incorporate crc checking? this would be dependent upon people keeping the filenames the same and such, but possibly a network could keep a list of crc checksums and therefore have instant verification. and then the network would display files that pass crc checks as green and a user would be able to filter out files that fail the crc check. it's just an idea, and it may be restrictive... but it could definitely stop the recording association's attempts to pollute the networks.

Read the news for today? It seems that all these are intentional by the media industry, I thought it was just some really bored ppl.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php3?ID=4669

Its a shame.

I received some personal e-mail about mp3's and again was curious about the validity of these same files.
Found the same bogus files as the email suggested and i can't believe that the people who have this shit on their harddrive can suggest
"I didn't know".
Was i miffed, no
Was i patient, yes
Did I get what i wanted, yes
Imagine a checkerboard and i tell you i will put a penny on it and tomorrow i will double that penny and put it in the next square and on the third day i will double what's on the second square and put it on the third square etc....
Imagine one person with the real files on any of those p2p systems.
You get the message.
Now why is this concept difficult to explain to the recording industry as well as the Recording Industry Ass Of America.