COMMENTARY--In Friday's column, I challenged Brilliant Digital Entertainment, the company at the center of the Kazaa controversy, to explain itself. Whatever else I think of the company, I have to admit that its CEO, Kevin Bermeister, has been up front about answering his company's critics. So I was only a little surprised to get a response from him the same day that column ran.
As background: Last week, ZDNet's John Borland reported that Brilliant's software was being distributed with file-swapping software downloaded from the Kazaa network. Brilliant's software allows it to create its own peer-to-peer network on users' computers, potentially without their knowledge. (Brilliant's licensing agreement was embedded deep inside Kazaa's.)
Huge controversy ensued. CNET's Downloads.com even pulled Kazaa from its system--a pretty strong punishment for what had been the service's top download. In its defense, Brilliant said it has no evil intentions and would never use someone's machine (or hard drive or Internet connection) without their permission.
But let me let Kevin speak for himself--and let you judge for yourselves.
AnchorDesk: How is Brilliant's use of Kazaa to propagate its software any different from the distribution methods used by computer viruses?
Bermeister: The piggyback methods we deploy are no different from those deployed currently and in the past by companies like Microsoft, AOL, and RealNetworks. There are many current and historical examples indicating that this practice is alive and well across the broader industry. As for your choice to associate us with viruses, I think this is an alarmist approach manifested in your writing. Our software is not a virus, it does not have the same effect on your computer as a virus, it is there with end-user permission. There are many other examples of this that you could have focused upon in the past, had you truly thought this was an issue you wanted to address for your users. Brilliant is following established industry protocols in regard to distribution.
How is Brilliant's software different from a Trojan horse that gives a third party access to a user's computer without his or her knowledge?
Your assumption that Brilliant is a Trojan horse is incorrect. I would direct you to review our policies. These are very clear. We have NO intention of accessing computers without the users' knowledge. In actual fact, Altnet is a user-initiated system where the end user has, and retains, FULL control over the access to and use of their computing resource and therefore the aggregate of all computing resources in the Altnet distributed computer community.
You added your user agreement to Kazaa's--so thousands, if not millions, of users have already agreed (in many cases unwittingly) to let you use their computers. Why did you choose this clandestine method of licensing?
This is not a clandestine method of licensing. It is the same method followed by others in the industry, as discussed in my points above. Having said this, I believe ALL industry licensing issues to be a bigger concern by virtue of the ease at which end users have become accustomed to accepting many of the terms in end-user agreements. However, you will notice by reading our full agreement that end users ARE required to grant Brilliant access to their computer resource BEFORE the resource is used.
You promise that, in the future, you'll ask people for permission to use their machines and (somehow) to compensate them. Why are you doing this now? And why didn't you start this way?
We have ALWAYS been required to get end-user permission, and we have always intended to compensate users for the use of their resource. These can be more clearly seen in our recent 10-K SB SEC filing and our current end-user agreement, from which I quote: "... in the event usage of your computer is initiated by a party other than you, BDE will grant you the ability to deny access."
Many of the agreements between users and their ISPs prohibit servers, file-swapping services, and sharing Internet connections. Couldn't the Brilliant network cause people to violate these agreements?
I'm not familiar with all these agreements, but we are not intending to enable end users to do anything that is not already a practice that is occurring daily on the Internet, and therefore these issues would already have been or will have to be addressed by ISPs and other end-user agreements that conflict with Brilliant's terms.
Those same ISPs could pay the real price for the Brilliant service, because they'll end up supplying the bandwidth required by your network. Do you have agreements in place with any ISPs to compensate them for use of their networks?
This issue has been considered by us. Right now the end user is paying for their ISP services, therefore they have a right to use them. If the ISPs in the future feel the need to increase the rates they charge to consumers, they have every right to make that decision. We intend to monitor and develop, over time, relationships with ISPs to manage this process, and we hope that ISPs can and will become part of the Altnet solution.
Even if someone knowingly agrees to be part of your network, how can he or she be sure his or her machine will remain secure? For example, let's say someone hacks into the Brilliant network. What's to keep them from infecting every computer on that network with viruses or worse? Suppose they started storing illegal content--child pornography, say--on those machines. Who'd be responsible? Could the cops kick down my door because a hacker put illegal content on my machine using Brilliant's network?
All files transported on Altnet are digitally signed. If you tamper with a file, the signature will not enable a file to pass through Altnet. Files include Level 1 industry strength security with signatures approved by Altnet. Altnet can revoke certificates, and files published can be revoked. This is no different from ZDNet downloads, where a publisher asks ZDNet to publish a file and where ZDNet, other than by agreement, may inadvertently publish a file with a virus attached, except that in this case ZDNet cannot revoke the file. As for child pornography, Altnet is NOT a user-propagated content network, it is a closed network, it is a secure network, and ONLY Altnet and its approved partners can pass files onto Altnet. So, you have no reason to be concerned about the cops kicking down your door, because they would be kicking mine down first.
Thanks, Kevin, I appreciate your response. I am not sure you answered all the questions--at least to my satisfaction--but I'll put this before AnchorDesk readers and let them decide what to make of Brilliant's plans.
What do you think of Kevin's responses? TalkBack to him--and me!
