Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Michael Weiss Interview 69

Posted by samzenpus from the listen-up dept.
chrish writes "Zeropaid has an interview with Michael Weiss, CEO of StreamCast Networks, maker of Morpheus. Michael has been involved in MGM v Grokster since the beginning, and provides a clear, thorough timeline of events since then. He also details interesting insights of his own into the future of the p2p space, including some new ad models."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Weiss Interview More

Michael Weiss Interview

Comments Filter:

  • nothing is more interesting than... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sum.zero ( 807087 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @10:49PM (#12230591)
    new ad models!!!

    i mean, who doesn't get excited when they hear about new ways to be bombarded with corporate propaganda!

    sum.zero

  • whoo-ee! (Score:5, Funny)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) * on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @10:56PM (#12230622) Journal
    more spyware! my favorite!

    • Re:whoo-ee! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eobanb ( 823187 ) on Thursday April 14, 2005 @12:59AM (#12231105) Homepage
      Weiss and his gang really are jerks, the way I see it. Morpheus uses a horribly outdated implentation of the Gnutella protocol, which wastes bandwidth and returns fewer results for searches. The whole idea behind programs like Morpheus are getting things for free. Do they really think they're doing everyone a favour by cramming ads and a shitty version of Gnutella on people's desktops?

      • Re:whoo-ee! (Score:2, Informative)

        by fcrick ( 465682 )
        You obviously haven't tried Morpheus recently. Morpheus' Gnutella implementation is up to date, but Morpheus hardly relies on Gnutella at the moment. Right now, most search results come from NEOnet, their in-house DHT (Distributed Hash Table), which provides fast, complete searches of all Morpheus clients.

        Morpheus has one bundle, SolidPeer, which can be completely removed after install in Add/Remove Programs.

        Note: I work for an affiliate of Streamcast.

  • Following the case (Score:5, Informative)

    by Polycom Sucks ( 872746 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @10:58PM (#12230630) Homepage
    "
    The Supreme Court agreed and heard the case on March 29, 2005. We expect to hear their decision in late June 2005."
    For any of you who are following the case, it looks like we may hear the landmark decision in just over two months. A decision for Grokster is what most of us are hoping for. It would be the modern day equivalant of the Betamax case of the late 70s.
    • Actually, the Betamax case hit the Supreme Court in 84. But it is possible that the case began in the 70's -- I'd have to check.

      • You are correct. I was thinking only of the decision in the U.S. District Court.

        The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony in October 1979. Next, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the decision in October 1981. Finally, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision on January 17, 1984.

        (Source [museum.tv])

  • What an ass! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:03PM (#12230654) Journal
    I'm sympathetic, in the sense that I think the law should be targeting violators, not technologies. (If the RIAA and the MPAA want to hammer the sharers, good luck to them.) And the part about David Kendall and Kenneth Starr teaming up to sue him is pretty funny.

    Nonetheless, I can't believe this guy goes around bragging about his "innovation" and wailing about how the US is going to suffer if the economic clout of the warez industry moves overseas. (That affects what, our Gr055 N4710n41 Pr0duc7?) C'mon, the guy's business model is illegally distributing other people's products! At least the Napster and BitTorrent guys had genuinely innovative software, but he can't even say that!

    • Making asses of US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:29PM (#12230784) Homepage Journal
      The guy's bizmodel is giving people a tool to exchange whatever we want, without some privileged mediator. That is the future of network communication, spearheaded right here in the USA. If we are forced to stop doing it, others with that freedom will become the leaders. That will certainly affect our GDP. And guys like this, who can rightfully claim to have led a huge surge in popularity of the apps, will find lots of welcoming places to work where people are responsible for their actions, not just for allowing other people to act.
      • The guy's bizmodel is giving people a tool to exchange whatever we want, without some privileged mediator.

        No, his business model is that people will pay him a little money or view some ads in order to save money over legally obtaining music or movies. Any legal benefits that accrue from it are purely accidental, as is the collateral damage caused by indiscriminately shutting P2P down.

        Like I said, I oppose restricting technology and would much rather see the RIAA go after college students, teenagers, gran

        • Re:Making asses of US (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mattcelt ( 454751 ) on Thursday April 14, 2005 @02:04AM (#12231337)
          in order to save money over legally obtaining music or movies.

          Show me where I can get what I want, where I want, legally. Seriously.

          iTunes? Nope, have to break the law there just to get music to play on my .mp3 player. (And I don't want a damn iPod, free or otherwise, thank you very much.)

          CDs? Nope, can't get a lot of the live shows I can download (legitimately even, in some cases!!) on CD.

          DVDs? Oh wait, the studios don't offer my favorite TV show [google.com] on DVD.

          If the content owner representatives would get their heads out of their collective assess and stop trying to CONTROL EVERYTHING, we wouldn't have anywhere near the copyright infringement "problem" we have right now. Compulsory licensing has worked for a century now, and the labels are STILL trying to get around it with every new technology that comes out. It's absurd - and the bitter irony is that the artists, who the RIAA and MPAA complain are being so unfairly trampled by 'piracy', are being short-changed. If they were just paid from a compulsory license pool (just like in radio), several dozen proposals of which have been floated in recent years, then this whole argument just goes away. Everybody wins, there is no more piracy, and we get on with our lives.

          So before you go blaming those of us who are simply satisfying ourselves IN WAYS WE CANNOT OTHERWISE because the *AAs can't get past their control freak tendencies, look at the whole picture - which I've just outlined for you.

          It's not about saving a few measly dollars, let me assure you.
          • If they were just paid from a compulsory license pool (just like in radio), several dozen proposals of which have been floated in recent years, then this whole argument just goes away. Everybody wins, there is no more piracy, and we get on with our lives.

            How does that work? The artists get paid whether anyone buys their work or not? If that's the case, then what guarantee is there that the people paying the artists ever make the money back, let alone a profit? Or, are you arguing that artists should be st

          • in order to save money over legally obtaining music or movies.

            Show me where I can get what I want, where I want, legally. Seriously.

            Yeah! Stick it to the man! So....there is this bank I really want to get into the vault of.....but they wont "legally" let me do that either. What the hell is the country coming to.

            If you are going to steal music, just steal it. Bonnie and Clyde didn't think they were doing doing what was Right and Just and Legal, they were doing what they wanted to do. Please do

  • How about paying people to receive adverts while they're downloading illegal content?
    That way, they can have their cake and eat it too.

    Until the companies involved get sued into the floor. ;-)

  • Ad models are the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by N5 ( 804512 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:10PM (#12230695)
    It's fairly simple:

    The people who would *arguably* use P2P for legal purposes only are probably geeks who don't want their boxen corrupted with garbage. [he claims no more spy/adware, but other "bundles" or as I collectivly call it all "assware"]

    The people who would *arguably* use P2P for illegal puropses are consumers who simply want stuff for free. This is the type of person these "companies" are trying to make cash from, all while giving P2P a bad name.

    Are the two mutually exclusive? not necessarily, but this is why Linux distros are distributed via BT and generally not [insert propriatary P2P network who's software includes tons of ad/spyware or other unwanted apps.]

    While it's nice of him to provide some info for us all, he is exactly the type of person we should be against: those demonizing P2P technology for personal gain, endangering it's very existance in the process.

    • Re:Ad models are the problem. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It doesn't really matter what the network is used for. This will set a precedent and if a court can shut down one p2p network it can shut down any. While we may see them differently, the courts will just see it all as illegal p2p.
    • If the **AA wins in the Supreme Court, it will deter progress in the P2P field, regardless of its purpose, as developers would fear making something that could be used for illegal purposes.

      For now, he's on our side. No doubt, he's fighting because of greed. But if he loses, expect larger losses in the future, at the expense of technology.

    • Yes, this is a nice observation about the usage patterns of different clients and technologies.

      No, this doesn't really matter for legal standards.

      The plaintiffs in this suit are looking for secondary liability for copyright infringement under either of two theories: either the software companies helped someone else infringe (contributory) or they were responsible for the actions of the direct infringers (vicarious). The fact that the software companies received money from advertisements / adware / spyware

      • Ads don't kill technology -- (overactive) copyright does.

        And how do you tell if copyright is overactive? If it is killing technology. Copyright is intended to protect artistic and literary works, not scientific or technological works. The specific code of a program has been deemed to be a "literary" work, but the strictly scientific or tecnological aspects of that code are not.

        This is why reverse engineering, quite legitimately, is legal. No one can claim ownership of "2+2=4" simply because they have inc

  • Ads? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:15PM (#12230718)
    "the future of the p2p space, including some new ad models"

    Talk of ad models implies something other than p2p. It's person to person, and people will choose the model without ads. Kazza Lite, anyone?

  • At least P2P is still kicking.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by JoeMerchant ( 803320 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:34PM (#12230800)
    It has been a long time since Napster took a dirt nap at the hands of the establishment.

    There's more than the "we don't run a central server" defense keeping P2P alive, I think the courts actually see the legitimate side like home video recording, which "we all knew" was only for porn and pirating....

    I tried, and failed, to interest some Angel V/C groups in starting a P2P venture just around the time that Gnutella was surfacing (and the .com bubble hadn't quite burst yet.) They had a hard time getting their heads around the legit moneymaking side of it all and passed on the deal - and apparently making legitimate money is still the hard nut to crack. Showing ads to pirates isn't very lucrative, or particularly safe from lawsuits.

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

    Wealth, Fame, Strength and Intelligence await in iCLOD city. [iclod.com]

  • Edelweiss (Score:2, Funny)

    by Godman ( 767682 )
    Michael Weiss, Michael Weiss, every morning its Morpheus
    small and, damn!
    you've soaked up my ram!,
    Put spyware and stuff on my PC
    mess of trojans
    may you go blam!,
    boom and blow forever
    Michael Weiss, Michael Weiss, bless my computer forever

    Doesn't entirely fit, but hey. :P

  • RIAA trying to outspend opponents? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spagetti_code ( 773137 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2005 @11:45PM (#12230850)
    The RIAA / MPAA strategy is to outspend their opponents into submission. Their strategy worked with Napster, Scour and countless others
    Actually, Napster had pretty deep pockets. What took them down was the judge (patel) who decided that their product was solely focused on the illegal distribution of music, with central control.

    If, on the other hand, you have a decentralised, p2p network where the developer is not controlling content, and it has legitimate uses, then the product is likely to win the case.

    On this point, hes full of it.

  • An interview about advertising on a web site about the business of advertising with pop-ups that open in Firefox. Thanks slashdot!

  • Ummmmm......... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by saur2004 ( 801688 ) on Thursday April 14, 2005 @12:24AM (#12230981)
    Morpheus does not include spyware - or adware. However, to help pay our bills - both development and legal - the free version of Morpheus currently ships with one to two additional software bundles.

    Errrrrrr.... O_o

    Head hurts. Need more caffeine.

  • The pretender (Score:5, Funny)

    by AgentGray ( 200299 ) on Thursday April 14, 2005 @12:27AM (#12230988) Homepage

    Little girl: Are you a CEO of Streamcast Networks?

    Michael Weiss: I am today.

    Oh, wait. That's Michael T. Weiss [imdb.com]

    Dang. Ms. Parker
  • This is the fluffiest puff piece I've read in a while. The interviewer had the opportunity to ask a lot of good questions, but instead lobbed nothing but softball questions until the interview finally devolved into a Morpheus sales pitch. What a disappointment.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close