I'm sorry you don't agree Moak - I've made a quick pass through the board the last few days, and I've found you to be one of the most intelligable posters here. I'm not oppose to metadata - I'm oppose to parsing of only specific metadata directly related to trading in a media that has already been demonstrated as a Bad Thing(tm) to traffic in.

It all boils down to: Is the client's primary purpose to trade in copyrighted materials?

Napster was. It was (effectively) shut down.
(My hope is) Xolox isn't. It won't be (effectively) shut down.

There is no reason for the RIAA to want to consider any Gnutella client good. I'm perfectly willing to grant that. I'm sure they'd like Gnutella gone, Napster gone, Morpheus gone, network shares gone, tape recorders gone, computers gone, cover bands gone, and cute little puppies gone, too.

But that's not the point. A *protocol* and an *application utilizing said protocol* are distinct. An application that uses a protocol to break the law is not legal. An application that doesn't use a protocol to break the law is not (in a sane legal system) illegal.

Otherwise, Napster woulda taken down TCP/IP as well. Now *that* would truly suck.

Napster was crushed. Why? Becuase it catered to the distribution of copyrighted materials.

Now let's take a look at Gnutella. The Gnutella network, by its nature, isn't specific to any single type of content. Ergo, it can be argued that its a general file sharing protocol that doesn't distinguish between the types of data present, copyrightable or not. It is no different then an open file share on a network. Or, more accurately, no different then HTTP, except it has a distributed DNS system tailored to indexing data rather then data-centers.

However, as soon as you add advanced functionality for a particular type of medium, you are in essence proposing that is an important, and possibly primary, function.

Now, to provide bitrate information means that Xolox, in addition to providing standard file sharing, is going out of it's way to make it easier to share music. Thus, it goes out of it's way to provided *enhanced* functionality towards the distribution of copyrighted materials.

Now, I'm not even sure if the "general file sharing tool" is legally in better standing then "music sharing tool". My entire statement rests on the (very weak) proposition that it is.

In that case, if a Gnutella client does NOT cross the line from being a "general file sharing tool" to a (in this case) "music sharing tool", it has a legal basis to defend itself.

I am sure the RIAA doesn't care about this distinction. But they aren't who I care notice it. It's the law and it's interpretation of Xolox's status that I'm concerned with.

Agreed. However, parse metadata for displaying bitrate information in a file sharing system, and you've tailored it for music. Each part (i.e. the underlying transfer system and the metadata for it's data) taken seperate is not a concern. Tie the two together though to enhance functionality for something that's been deemed bad is, well, bad.

To try and illustrate my point via useless shock value, let's say that someone creates a Gnutella client whose tailored to find kiddie porn. There is metadata floating about, which it parses to effectively aid its users in finding said kiddie porn. The metadata in-and-of-itself isn't illegal (though the data sure as hell is). The underlying protocol isn't illegal. Yet, the application is tailored to perform an illegal function. Sure, it might be able to transfer non-kiddie porn files, but that doesn't distract from its enhanced, and arguably primary, functionality. Shall we consider it safe to assume that this program is illegal?

Assuming you agree, it's not hard to make the logical comparison - both are Gnutella clients that provide enhanced functionality to aid in the transfer of files that are illegal to distribute. And this is the reason I'm leary about having bitrate information displayed.