Talk:Madster

"The reason was that Madster encrypted the contents of the files, which made it impossible for the RIAA to determine who were illegally sharing their protected music"

This line is mostly false. Madster did start to release more software tools such as the Pig Encoder to change filenames to piglatin, and tools that actually did start to encrypt the files of users. However, the Madster client never encrypted files on the user's computer and the only encryptions with the Madster service were the text encryption of all filenames when sent to the server, and the encryption of all network traffic between the client and server.

It is true that the servers never had the actual filenames of files being shared. There was a simple 1->1 text mapping of all filenames before being sent to the server. Every search query from the client was then mapped using this scheme, so that the server could search without knowing the real search terms or filenames it was searching. When the results were returned to the client, the client mapped the filenames back to the real ones.

This was also part of the segmented company defense, since technically BuddyUSA was using a proprietary encryption scheme that AbovePeer was not privy to, and any attempt to crack it (so that they could filter out copyrighted material), would violate the DMCA.

Rewrite needed
I've removed most of the content of this article, reducing it to a one-paragraph stub. The article made a lot of unsourced assertions about living people, and read like a screed from an angry ex-employee. There should be valid sources for a lot of the material, especially the lawsuits, but until they're included, the content can't stay. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment about "only being able to share with users on their buddy lists" is very false. I've used Aimster before and there was a search feature very like Napster. Aimster was also out before the fall of Napster as well (thus it didn't necessarily appear in the wake of Napster but just before the wake, I.E about 2001 I believe), as I was using it at the same time the napster network was still running (I preferred Aimster over Napster). Anyway, my two cents... I might write this article if I have time (MGoers37 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Legal Significance
There needs to be a good, clear account of how the aimster/madster saga related to the DMCA witch hunts of the day and how it steered the corporate organization of aimster and the encryption scheme, and how these arguments were greeted by the courts. Most of the court documents are on john deep's internet defense site and there are countless sources within those documents for john deep's arguments about the corporate structure, there's plenty of web and news articles about the dmca and what it says, and then the documents again state how the judge ruled on john's arguments (the ones that have been ruled on), and which ones are still outstanding, since he was never actually granted a full hearing with discovery and such, he's only been trying unsuccessfully to stay and reverse injunctions and now bankruptcy, but there are some important insights into legal interpretations/understandings of technology & also employee remuneration with the eventual amici deal that should not be lost to history.

there are plenty of news sources for all of these court rulings, such as:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-975927.html

http://news.com.com/Court+chains+Aimsters+melodies/2100-1023_3-964212.html

Of course, it's difficult to document a lot of the details of the arguments since there's a discrepancy even between what has been documented and what was the reality. But without getting into everything I think there should be a good discussion about the DMCA and the way madster was going about avoiding it, since that was what most of the hype centered around.


 * It is not for us to decide on the significance of the legal cases around Madster, nor is it for us to decide that there "needs to be" an account of the "DMCA witch hunts." Those are questions to be answered by reliable, third-party sources. This is certainly not the place for a "discussion" of the DMCA, however. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a compilation of essays. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what you're doing though by removing all of this data. You're deciding what facts are important to report and what aren't. You just removed a well known cultural reference for madster that I reinserted into the entry, with a valid source, because you called it "silly content". It was one of the most publicized acts of madster and you decided it wasn't significant, so don't tell me it's not for "us" to decide on the significance of events. Also, the reliable sources section that you refer to has a specific clause for dealing with information inserted by a first-party.

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

* it is relevant to their notability; * it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

None of the information we provided was unduly self-serving, the claims about third parties were or can be almost entirely documented by media and court reports, and certainly there can be a way to avoid doubt over who we are.

My comments about the court proceedings were to the other people who I know read this entry and keep it factual. I was merely suggesting they rewrite it with source citations, which I would then assume would stop you from blindly deleting things unless you're a spiteful person, but there are no reliable sources indicating you are. This is the discussion page, so those are my comments regarding what material i think should be reinserted with the necessary citations.

Reverted again
User:Evandhoffman, who is a former employee of this company, just restored the objectionable material with the edit summary, "Reverted to previous version, not sure why the actual content was removed." Oddly enough, the reason why it was removed was sitting right here on the talk page. The tone is completely inappropriate and the article contains multiple unsourced assertions about living people. It's not that hard, folks. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)