KaZaa's FastTrack to Napsterhood

Despite being in business for only a few months, the two Dutch creators of the FastTrack file-sharing network have already made a small fortune. Along with collecting undisclosed fees for licensing their file-sharing software to MusicCity and Morpheus, they've earned more than $1.4 million from "adware" companies that attach their plug-ins to KaZaa, FastTrack's original and wildly popular client.

But has their mad search for profit -- characterized by the company's decision to attach no fewer than five pieces of adware to KaZaa -- gone too far?

A handful of programmers who have created an open-source FastTrack client called giFT seem to think so. They're convinced that FastTrack's creators made changes to how their peer-to-peer network works specifically to cut off access to giFT -- in other words, just to protect their KaZaa revenue stream. And now, the programmers argue, FastTrack is about to pay a serious price. The changes, they charge, resulted in a network that has central "supernodes" that can be targeted by foes of the system. In other words, FastTrack has become another Napster, ripe for beheading by the recording industry. With lawsuits from the movie and recording industry now on file -- alleging that FastTrack, KaZaa, MusicCity and Morpheus are all guilty of copyright infringement -- it may be only a matter of time before FastTrack and its licensees join Napster on the rubbish heap.

"Basically FastTrack screwed themselves over to get rid of us," says Chris Testa, project manager of the open-source development team.

Niklas Zennstrom, FastTrack's CEO, didn't respond to an e-mail seeking comment. And much of the technical information that Testa's relying on comes from an anonymous Web page posted by someone who also didn't respond to e-mail. Crucial questions -- How centralized has FastTrack's network become? How much could it hurt the company's case? -- remain unanswered.

But this much is clear: About a month ago, KaZaa asked users to download a security patch that cut off access to giFT. And if that decision ends up forcing the network to close or lock out users, millions of music-swapping fans will be sorely disappointed. --Damien Cave 11:30 a.m., PDT, Oct. 5, 2001]

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The assault on civil liberties, continued

The good news: If the latest congressional anti-terrorism bill passes, as expected, the federal government won't be allowed to detain any noncitizen indefinitely without a trial after all. The bad news: But it will still be able to do unprecedented electronic snooping, even though some of its new powers will expire on Dec. 31, 2003.

The new bill, introduced in the House Tuesday by members of the House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., eliminates or curtails some of the more extreme infringements on civil liberties proposed by the Justice Department's proposed anti-terrorism bill.

But the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 -- known by the none-too-subtle acronym P.A.T.R.I.O.T. -- still goes further toward extending government powers than many defenders of civil liberties would like. The American Civil Liberties Union has already denounced the legislation.

"All they've done is taken out or softened a couple of really objectionable provisions, and added this sunset provision for the surveillance section," says Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A "sunset" provision means that some powers granted the government in the bill will automatically expire at the end of 2003.

One major change from the previous legislation: The new bill will not allow U.S. officials to use evidence obtained by foreign governments through wiretapping that violates Fourth Amendment protections around search and seizure. But it retains many of the previous provisions that civil libertarians objected to, including lessening judicial oversight in wiretapping and making it easier for law enforcement to snoop on e-mail. --Katharine Mieszkowski 4:45 p.m., PDT, Oct. 1, 2001]

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The Child Online Protection Act gets a date with the Supremes

Even as the country wrestles with how to combat terrorism while protecting civil liberties, the Supreme Court has finally set a date to hear a case crucial to the continued possibilities for free online speech.

On Nov. 28, 2001, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Ashcroft v. ACLU, a case in which the ACLU challenged the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a law requiring all Web sites publishing material "harmful to minors" to restrict visitors.

When the legislation passed in Oct. 1998, the American Civil Liberties Union and a raft of media organizations as plaintiffs (including Salon.com) brought suit against COPA and won an injunction that has so far prevented implementation of the law. Some examples of materials that the plantiffs fear could be restricted under the laws: an article describing a gay author's first experience of masturbation published on the Web site of the bookstore A Different Light or sex advice for the disabled on the Sexual Health Network site.

In June 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia upheld the injunction against COPA, and the ACLU declared victory. Will the changed political climate of today make any difference when the Supremes address the case? --Katharine Mieszkowski 2:15 pm, PDT, Oct. 1, 2001]

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Grossest abuse of patriotism in a post-attack spam yet

We present this spam without comment, other than to note that the product being advertised is a teeth-whitener.

"That's right! You here [sic] it from our leaders and those of our allies. We must continue to do the things that make us feel good."

"Our way of showing support in the effort to resume normalcy in the free world and to help keep the economy going is by GIVING you and a guest a free ALL INCLUSIVE 4 day VACATION. By taking advantage of this gift you will have the britest [sic] smile of your life. Ordinarily we could not afford to offer a free vacation of this magnitude with an actual retail value of $1,090.00 for free with our service. (click here to see your free vacation) However, in the wake of America's mourning we feel obligated to help anyone who wants to feel good again. Whether you decide to take the free vacation or pass it on to a friend, know this "all that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for people to do nothing" So we say to you all...enjoy yourself and we hope you enjoy your vacation! God Bless Freedom!" --Andrew Leonard 4:45 pm, PDT, Sept. 27, 2001]

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Got a tip for the In Box? E-mail us