I assume you are talking about http://kazza.com Like most file sharing services you pay for access to their site i.e web page or software and your use of their site. i.e. web page is NOT illegal using there software is not illegal. What you download and share is another issue. I hate to break it to you but unless you are downloading and sharing content that is freely available and licensed for public distribution you got gouged.

If you read there material it says clearly that they are not responsible for the content that is shared. There pretty much repeat everything I've said countless times in the forum. Therefore, if you end up in court and you try to use the argument that you paid for the software and access to content. They the company will agree. However if you are in court because you got caught up in a sting operation for distributing infringing content that company is going to leave you holding the bag because their responsibility stops with collecting your money and giving you some software and access to some web pages. That's what you paid for not those juicy mp3s or feature length movies.

I would stop short of calling people who run these types of sites scam artists because what they are doing is perfectly legal. A little dishonest and not straight forward. It's like those companies that promised people access to good and high paying jobs.

If you first sign an agreement that you will not sue them or hold them liable for their services. Then you fork over $75 dollars then they lead you to a room where there are newspaper cut outs of high paying jobs.

There's a sucker born everyday.

Correct me if I am wrong on this point, but, unless there has been a recent and fundamental change in legislation...

Downloading is legal

Uploading is not legal.

A bit like possesion/consumption of cannabis related substances in many countries today...
It's OK as long as you obtained it through a process similar to immaculate conception !!! :rolleyes:

hey lee,,,


thanks man,,your info and views make good since,, i mean hey,, if sombody owns copyrights to somthing and you take it with out proper permision,,then you have violated copyright laws,,no matter how you cut it,, nothing comes free,, i"m gonna hold off on file-sharing until some judges make a definate ruling,,on the copyright issues,, and these law suits go away,, wish they would work somthing out where everybody is happy,, but thanks again for your info,views,and advice....

leeware im scared
 

leeware will i be in trouble if

i dont know if ill be arrested/sued if i download for example [Edit] and i also wanna know is all movie downloading illegal

1. Being nice here and not posting the 'big' Edit Note about references to copyright infringement, but please do not name names of artists or song titles or software or any other copyrighted material.

2. No need to make multiple posts on the same subject or question.

3. Relax. Really... The tax people will probably get you in about 20 years or so if you simply stand still !
So, don't worry too much now about all of this.
Have a read through as much as possible and you'll be in a better position to decide what you wish to do.
I'm sure that LeeWare will be around to try to answer any questions that are not answered here already.

For the Record
 

Uploading is not illegal [it depend on what you upload]
Downloading it not illegal [it depends on what you download]

Finally let's say I wanted to pirate gigs of content. Well most file sharing networks have swarming features. Let say it takes me days or weeks to download the pirated content. During that time I am also a source for that content during that time. How would you know that their isn't an agency spider querying your host? You don't

Furthermore, people [not you] have presented arguments what if I named the file something else? how would they know the the file I have is the real one without downloading the entire file?

Again most of these arguments overlook fundamental facts.

The agencies use the same system used by the P2P networks to weed out fakes. Remember hash values etc. Therefore they know the real files by its values not the names.

You Understand
 

The conclusions you have arrived at are the correct one. copyright infringment is copyright infringment no matter how you cut it.


I doubt if any judge will provide a ruling that states that it's okay to pirate content from the internet. No judge has the power to effectively reverse the standing copyright laws. The most the file sharing community can hope for is that they stop drawing heat for the actions of individuals. When I say the file sharing community I mean the P2P application producers. Technology should be free to innovate.

Now the purpose of my many discussion is NOT to discourage people from participating in file sharing network. It's to help people mitigate their legal issues while doing so. If you listen to the media reports you get the impression that P2P = piracy This is largely a falacy. It is more accurate to say that P2P is one of the way people pirate content. Alternatively, if you listen to those in the P2P community mainly users--RIAA and MPAA are the evil empire and they are infringing on peoples rights and in invading their privacy. This is also a falacy of omission.

MPAA and RIAA are groups the represent the interest of their members i.e. record companies and movie studios. People do you P2P to pirate content. The ISPs fight for the users rights to protect their own interest. NOT because they support piracy. The ISPs don't want to get sued for forking over people information without proper legal documentation. People commonly confuse this with the ISP is protecting me. No, the ISP has a legal responsibility to enfource its TOS and AUP policies. It also has the responsibility to respect the privacy of its customers. This does not equate to protecting pirates.

My Bad !
 

Hi, LeeWare...


My error of omission...

That should have read -


Downloading copyrighted material is legal.

Uploading copyrighted material is not legal.

To paraphrase -
Taking is OK,
Giving is not.

The rulings with which I am familiar have all supported the above.

?

Re: My Bad !
 

Wrong it depends on the countries law, Germany changed the law recently. Now also downloading is illegal, I believe the USA have a similar law. AFAIK Spain and Canada are countries where you are allowed to download.

Morgwen

Your opinion, Mr. Evans
 

I have read through the whole 4-page long thread and I understand and agree with your point on the legalities. It is indeed illegal using your formulaic ideology, it only makes sense. You may have permission from the peer that you directly download from, but not necessarily from the original downloader/manufacturer. Each download depends on the original copyright and its fine print (which are the stipulations and conditions that they have the right to mandate). I understand this fully (and thoroughly from the thread). However, there is a rather popular service, that I'm sure you're familiar with, it's called Limewire. I have read the statistics that show how popular it is and even some of my friends use it (and find it extremely commendable, I've listened to the music from it). I wonder whether this is just another Napster of Kazaa. I am fully willing to admit that I'm wrong, but Limewire, despite its rave reviews and refined conditions (lack of spyware, ads, etc.), seems to use the same process as these other P2P services, therein making it a legally dangerous issue also.

http://www.limewire.com/english/content/home.shtml

This is the link where I tried to find as much information concerning this subject of Limewire. Please answer me this:

- Do you believe Limewire to be a potential Kazaa in terms of lawsuit?
- Do you know whether Limewire is exactly the same as Kazaa?
- Would you use Limewire personally?
- Do you know any way to observe the copyright stipulations of music that one wishes to download, WITHOUT actually buying the CD (over the internet preferably)?
- What do you expect the outcome of this/these cases to be?
- What do wish the outcome of this/these cases to be?
- Are you a lawyer?

I anticipate your answer eagerly because I consider you a valuable, knowledgeable, articulate, and intelligent source. I want to thank you for your patience and dedication to this particular thread.


-S. Priya

Answers to your Questions
 

I'll address each one of your concerns in turn.

- Do you believe LimeWire to be a potential kazza in terms of lawsuits?

I assume you mean can and will they be sued by the RIAA or the MPAA. Let me

answer by saying that all P2P services are vulnerable to law suits by the

industry. These are attacks against the technology and the technology providers

not the root causes of the problem. These are the things that I don't think is

fair. I also assume that your question is looking for an answer that would

suggest why hasn't the MPAA or RIAA sued LimeWire. I would have to start by

answering the question why the RIAA or MPAA are after Kazaa.

#1 They are the biggest file sharing network around = [Biggest Threat]
LimeWire / Gnutella is relatively small when compaired to other P2P

Networks. LimeWire would be the largest of the Gnutella- based P2P players as

their user base usually lingers in the range of 180 - 250K users. These

numbers are slightly exaggerated but fair. More realistically, more like 180 -

210K. However, keep in mind this is a personal guestimate.


- Do you know whether LimeWire is exactly the same as Kazaa?

exactly the same? Only conceptually as well as all other P2P applications.
But more specifically absolutely not -- the underlying technology is different,

their Philosopical approach to file sharing is different. For example:

Kazaa's grand scheme appears to be-- the old bait and switch routine. Gather

the largest userbase though any means necessary and then use the consumers PCs

as a distribution network for partners without compensating the end-users. Sell

advertising rights to the highest bidder. Their grand scheme is very much like

the cable companies who are turning into ISPs. Once they establish a monopoly

they will dictate the terms of use which will always be in their best

interests. Oh by the way, did I mention this is why the MPAA and RIAA dislike

these guys because they feel that their business model is largely contructed

around the the fact the people can get Movies and Music [much of it

copyrighted] This is one of the means they [Kazaa] uses to build its large

userbase.

LimeWire on the other hand, at least for right now, appears to be more

community oriented their stated goals are constructed around the idea of

creating a good P2P network. They have a track record of doing a lot for the
P2P community in general.

LimeWire was pretty much the first P2P program I used and believe me I've tried

all of the major ones. But more than that, LimeWire is the only P2P program

I've ever felt compelled to actually buy. I have purchased several version of

the product over time.

- Would I use LimeWire personally?

Let me give you some information:

Library size: 406 files 41.83.0GB | Files Distributed: 4,089,594 [4.0 million]

About 80% of the number of files distributed are via LimeWire's servents
The rest are via Overnet or Shareaza and some DC++


- Do you know any way to observe the copyright stipulations of music that one

wishes to download, WITHOUT actually buying the CD (over the internet

preferably)?

Not really, however there is--

http://www.launch.com [You can't download the songs or the videos but you can

pretty much watch or listen as much as you like. Some people will argue about

the limited selection.]

- What do you expect the outcome of this/these cases to be?

Cases against infringers will end up being a winning proposition for the MPAA

and RIAA they have good agents collecting good solid evidence against

infringers. I think that once a person finds themselves in court over

infringment and they see the evidence it's hard to fight it. Score 1 for the

RIAA and the MPAA.


Cases against P2P network operators will continue to be lost by the MPAA and

RIAA on the ground that the technology can't and should not be restricted

because it does in fact have non-infringing uses and the fact the some people

use the software to pirate content is not the P2P operators responsibility.
Score 1 for the P2P operators.

However, the P2P operators can put themselves in a pickle if they offer too

many protections for the users of their software products. because doing so

would make it easier for the MPAA and the RIAA to prove / argue that they [P2P

operators] not only have the ability but an interest in faciliating piracy.

Leading to a contributory copyright infringment judgment against a P2P

operation. If this happens against any distributed services you can pretty

much kiss P2P good-bye. This would be the beginning of very slippery-slope.

Because people would begin bringing law suits against the most mundane uses of

technology furthermore the P2P operators are likely to argue that they are

unfairly being singled out and continue to argue they if you do this to us then

X, Y and Z should also be held to these standards etc.

Finally, this leads me to the cases involving ISPs standing up against the RIAA

and the MPAA over the identities of suspected pirates. As I've said before the

ISP are not trying to protect the consumers they by law [DMCA] have to warn and

if necessary cut off access to infringing content. Therefore, they would gladly

turn over the information in fact, I would image many of them do.

When ISPs allow themselves to be dragged into court over giving up the IDs of

suspected pirates it is for primarily two reasons.

#1 They are protecting their own interests. They don't want to get sued by

their customers for violating their own privacy agreements.

#2 They don't want to allocate the resources [people, time and money] towards

policing the network. It unfairly burdens them to do this.

This is like some cases involving the BSA - they represent software

manufactures. Every few years or in states where software piracy is a big issue

the mail out threating letters to all of the business--warning them of the

hefty fines for software piracy. Some companies run out an buy software. Other

look at the documentation and laugh because they know that this organization

without a court order can't just waltz into a business and conduct an audit.

Therefore some ISPs decide to challenge the requests for information on these

grounds. They are basically saying if you want us to give up IDs and other

information you better show up with a court order.

People in the P2P community shouldn't confuse this challenge with the notion

that the ISPs want to protect them from being sued because they got caught

pirating content.

- What do wish the outcome of this/these cases to be?

That they leave the technology vendors alone and go after the individual

infringers. They need to workout via the courts and the ISPs the best ways to

do this.

- Are you a lawyer?

No, but as an SSA I work with lawyers on the alignment of legal policies with

technology issues. For example, the last question I was asked by a legal team was...Can P2P operators block Infringing content and if so, how?

LeeWare, is it not important to note that Gnutella Network is not a server-based p2p 'system' ?

There are no LimeWire or BearShare or Shareaza or Gnucleus, etc., etc. central servers.

Litigation against LimeWire, or any of the other Gnutella Network based clients, for facilitating acts of copyright infringement would be akin to Adobe being sued because some individuals use Photoshop and/or Acrobat Reader for creating paedophilic and/or pornographic material. Or, the somewhat well-worn analogy of suing a gun manufacturer because their products were used in the commission of a crime.

?

Absolutely
 

Of course it is important to argue the decentralized aspect of technology.
However those argument over look a fundamental fact which is increasing becoming the issue and that is. If you create a product then you have influence over the design. The industry is requesting that mechanisms be built into the technology to protect content from blatant piracy. Although every industry could argue that they are not responsible for the uses of their products. Everyday more and more industries are showing a good-faith effort to build into their product features which protect or in some way twart blatant piracy.

Since you mentioned Adobe -- you also realize that their products support and honor security restrictions placed on the document at creation time. Therefore if the author says user cannot alter document the product supports this. It has other restrictions. Some computers and operating systems won't copy some medi and at a bare minimum will display a message that must e acknowledged by the user.

The fact that a network is decentralized doesn't change the fact that the providers of the technology have the ability to influence the basic functionality of their products. Therefore the legal question is .. whether they can be made to do it? Personally i think not. Can they make a good-faith effort to do something absolutely.

The real question is would it be in the P2P operators best interest to do something like this?


Yes - in that they [P2P operators] could reach an agreement with the RIAA and MPAA that states we will and can do A B & C If you will do X Y & Z.Indemification

No - in that anyone closely connected to the P2P community knows that doing this can lead to backlash form all of those opportunistic pirates.

We also know that staying alive in the P2P world is about maintaining a sizable user community you do something like this and you are likely to lose a significant portion of your userbase and this would make your efforts in P2P futile.

Finally, I think that this puts P2P operators in a difficult position in which non of their options look good.

OK, and thanks again...

But, there is something that you mention that I feel stills needs to be clarified... And, no, I am not merely making a gesture towards some 'game' of semantics...

With Gnutella Network, there are no p2p operators as far as clients such as LimeWire et al are concerned.

In Gnutella Network, p2p operators could only refer to each and every individual participating within the Network (i.e. 'users'). There is no owner or operator of Gnutella Network.

Last, I cannot state the following in regards to all of the Gnutella Network based clients, but those I am aware of do have documentation (as a part of the installaton process) which attempts to absolve them from responsibility in terms of users' illegal activities while using said client.

?

Clarifications
 

I could se how you might mis-understand what I mean when I talk about "p2p operators"

p2p operators = companies that make p2p software.

end users = the average person that installs and runs the software.

Re: Clarifications
 

"Yes, but, no !"

(The philosophers chant !)


Keeping the topic now strictly related to Gnutella Network only, groups or organisations which produce/create/distribute software for use with the Gnutella Network are not 'operating' anything.
They are 'providing' software for the purposes of facilitating the use of Gnutella Network in order that individuals may more easily exchange files on a person to person basis. What the 'end user' does in regards to any possible infringemant of copyright or other possible 'restrictions' is not the responsibility of the 'makers' of p2p software intended for use with the Gnutella Network.

They, the 'makers', not only do not provide 'servers' specific to the operation of 'their' software but, Gnutella Network does not function with 'central servers'. This fact makes Gnutella Network, and the 'status' of those who 'produce' software for use with Gnutella Network, very much different from that of the numerous 'central server' based p2p applications.


I make the above comments not with any desire to be argumentative, but to encourage clarification of the position vis a vis Gnutella Network.

Clarifications
 

Don't get me wrong I totally understand where you're coming from. Try to think of it this way. P2P software basically creates an overlay network. This virtual network only exists "within the software" therefore it you are not running "the software then you are not a part of this overlay network." If this specialized network doesn't exist without the software. Where is the distinction?

This is exactly the situation with ISPs who created walled version of the Internet i.e. AOL. or cable internet providers. They control a significant portion of the resources that make your communications possible. Therefore they are not only providing access they are providing a service.

http://news.com.com/2010-1027_3-1023...ml?tag=fd_nc_1

Here is an excerpt from one of the popular Gnutella clients.
It is a part of the agreement the 'user' undertakes as a part of agreeing to accepting the terms of use as stated by those 'responsible' for creating and making available the software.
(I have removed the client's name and replaced it with 'xxxx'.)

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

Blah, blah, blah and blah... The user...

... respects the rights of copyright owners to control commercial uses of their material. The Software enables users to connect to, download files from and share files over public and private Gnutella networks. By using the Software you acknowledge that you are responsible for complying with all federal and state laws applicable to the content you download and share using the Software, including copyright laws. Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works may be an infringement of the copyright holders' rights in certain circumstances. You acknowledge that any liability for such infringement lies solely with you. You agree to indemnify and hold xxxx, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, officers, directors and employees, harmless from any claim, demand, or damage, including reasonable attorneys' fees, asserted by any third party due to or arising out of your use of the Software.

By using the Software you acknowledge that you are aware that some files available on the public or private Gnutella networks accessible through the Software may have been created or distributed without the authorization of the copyright owner or as authorized by law. As a condition to the license granted under this Agreement, you agree that you will not use the Software to infringe the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of others in any way. xxxx reserves the right to terminate the license granted under this Agreement in appropriate circumstances upon any single infringement of the rights of others in conjunction with use of the Software or if xxxx believes the your conduct is harmful to the interests of xxxx, its affiliates, or other users; or for any other reason in xxxx's sole discretion, with or without cause.

As a condition to your use of the Software, you agree that you will not use the Software (i) to invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any other user of the Software, or to modify, erase or damage any information contained on the computer of any other user of the Software; (ii) to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way (iii) to "stalk" or otherwise harass others; (iv) to collect or distribute child pornography or other obscene or illegal material; or (v) promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals or (vi) to engage in any other illegal activities such as treason or terrorism (this may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades and other weapons).

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

A Gnutella Network client can be protected by insisting that such a proviso be accepted by the 'user' prior to commiting to the installation of the 'software'. If the 'user' does not accept the terms, the 'software' does not install. Standard practice.

Any 'central server' based p2p client cannot be protected by the above or similar.

Yes ?

... or promote any act of cruelty to animals...

As Moderators here, this line is a great relief to Morgwen and me !!!

It means at least one client out there is trying to protect us !
:p

LOL
 

LOL

The following may be of interest...
You can find this article (with responses) and many more items of interest in *GNUTELLA NEWS*... Click on it in my sig below... ;)

EFF Breaktrough: Let The Music Play White Paper
Posted by Tom Barger on February 25, 2004 at 11:28 PM EST
February 24, 2004

A Better Way Forward:
Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing
"Let the Music Play" White Paper

Download PDF (51k) here: http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.pdf

The current battles surrounding peer-to-peer file sharing are a losing proposition for everyone. The record labels continue to face lackluster sales, while the tens of millions of American file sharers -- American music fans -- are made to feel like criminals. Every day the collateral damage mounts -- privacy at risk, innovation stymied, economic growth suppressed, and a few unlucky individuals singled out for legal action by the recording industry. And the litigation campaign against music fans has not put a penny into the pockets of artists.

We need a better way forward.

The Premises

First, artists and copyright holders deserve to be fairly compensated.

Second, file sharing is here to stay. Killing Napster only spawned more decentralized networks. Most evidence suggests that file sharing is at least as popular today as it was before the lawsuits began.

Third, the fans do a better job making music available than the labels. Apple's iTunes Music Store brags about its inventory of over 500,000 songs. Sounds pretty good, until you realize that the fans have made millions of songs available on KaZaA. If the legal clouds were lifted, the peer-to-peer networks would quickly improve.

Fourth, any solution should minimize government intervention in favor of market forces.

The Proposal: Voluntary Collective Licensing

EFF has spent the past year evaluating alternatives that get artists paid while making file sharing legal. One solution has emerged as the favorite: voluntary collective licensing.

The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway -- share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer -- without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music.

In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog.

The Precedent: Broadcast Radio

It has been done before.

Voluntarily creating collecting societies like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC was how songwriters brought broadcast radio in from the copyright cold in the first half of the twentieth century.

Songwriters originally viewed radio exactly the way the music industry today views KaZaA users -- as pirates. After trying to sue radio out of existence, the songwriters ultimately got together to form ASCAP (and later BMI and SESAC). Radio stations interested in broadcasting music stepped up, paid a fee, and in return got to play whatever music they liked, using whatever equipment worked best. Today, the performing-rights societies ASCAP and BMI collect money and pay out millions annually to their artists. Even though these collecting societies get a fair bit of criticism, there's no question that the system that has evolved for radio is preferable to one based on trying to sue radio out of existence one broadcaster at a time.

Copyright lawyers call this voluntary collective licensing. The same could happen today for file sharing: Copyright holders could get together to offer their music in an easy-to-pay, all-you-can-eat set. We could get there without the need for changes to copyright law and with minimal government intervention.

The Money: Collecting It

Starting with just the 60 million Americans who have been using file-sharing software, $5 a month would net over $3 billion of pure profit annually to the music industry -- no CDs to ship, no online retailers to cut in on the deal, no payola to radio conglomerates, no percentage to KaZaA or anyone else. Best of all, it's an evergreen revenue stream -- money that just keeps coming, during good times and bad, so long as fans want digital music online. The pie grows with the growth of music sharing on the Internet, instead of shrinking. The total annual gross revenues of the music industry today are estimated at $11 billion. But that's gross revenues. A collective licensing regime for file-sharing can promise $3 billion in annual profits to the record labels -- more than they've ever made.

How do we get filesharers to pay up? That's where the market comes in -- those who today are under legal threat will have ample incentive to opt for a simple $5 per month fee. There should be as many mechanisms for payment as the market will support. Some fans could buy it directly through a website (after all, this was what the RIAA had in mind with its "amnesty" program). ISPs could bundle the fee into their price of their broadband services for customers who are interested in music downloading. After all, ISPs would love to be able to advertise a broadband package that includes "downloads of all the music you want." Universities could make it part of the cost of providing network services to students. P2P file-sharing software vendors could bundle the fee into a subscription model for their software, which would neatly remove the cloud of legal uncertainty that has inhibited investment in the P2P software field.

The Money: Dividing It Up

The money collected would then be divided between artists and rights-holders based on the relative popularity of their music.

Figuring out what is popular can be accomplished through a mix of anonymously monitoring what people are sharing (something companies like Big Champagne and BayTSP are already doing) and recruiting volunteers to serve as the digital music equivalent of Nielsen families. Billions in television advertising dollars are divided up today using systems like this. In a digital environment, a mix of these approaches should strike the right balance between preserving privacy and accurately estimating popularity.

The Advantages

The advantages of this approach are clear:

Artists and rights holders get paid. What's more, the more broadband grows, the more they get paid, which means that the entertainment industry's powerful lobby will be working for a big, open, and innovative Internet, instead of against it.

Government intervention is kept to a minimum: copyright law need not be amended, and the collecting society sets its own prices. The $5 per month figure is a suggestion, not a mandate. At the same time, the market will keep the price reasonable -- collecting societies make more money with a palatable price and a larger base of subscribers, than with a higher price and expensive enforcement efforts.

Broadband deployment gets a real boost as the "killer app" -- music file sharing -- is made legitimate.

Investment dollars pour into the now-legitimized market for digital music file-sharing software and services. Rather than being limited to a handful of "authorized services" like Apple's iTunes and Napster 2.0, you'll see a marketplace filled with competing file-sharing applications and ancillary services. So long as the individual fans are licensed, technology companies can stop worrying about the impossible maze of licensing and instead focus on providing fans with the most attractive products and services in a competitive marketplace.

Music fans finally have completely legal access to the unlimited selection of music that the file-sharing networks have provided since Napster. With the cloud of litigation and "spoofing" eliminated, these networks will rapidly improve.

The distribution bottleneck that has limited the opportunities of independent artists will be eliminated. Artists can choose any road to online popularity -- including, but no longer limited to, a major label contract. So long as their songs are being shared among fans, they will be paid.

Payment will come only from those who are interested in downloading music, only so long as they are interested in downloading.

How does this help artists?

Artists benefit in at least three ways. First, artists will now be paid for the file sharing that has become a fact of digital life.

Second, independent artists no longer need a record deal with a major label to reach large numbers of potential fans -- so long as you have any fans who are sharing your music online, others will be able to access your music on equal footing with major label content. In other words, digital distribution will be equally available to all artists.

Third, when it comes to promotion, artists will be able to use any mechanism they like, rather than having to rely on major labels to push radio play. Anything that makes your works popular among file sharers gets you paid. There would still be a role for the record industry -- many artists will still want help with promotion, talent development, and other supportive services. With more options for artists to choose from, the contracts will be more balanced than the one-sided deals offered to most artists today.

What about antitrust?

Because a collective licensing solution will depend on a single collecting society issuing blanket licenses covering all (or nearly all) music copyrights, there will need to be some antitrust regulation of the collecting society to ensure that it does not abuse its market power. Both ASCAP and BMI, for example, have been subject to a court-administered antitrust consent decree for many decades. The regulation need not be extensive, as the collecting society will essentially be selling only a single product at a single price to all comers. Regulators will keep a close eye on the collecting society to make sure that it deals fairly with artists and copyright holders, most of whom will rely on the collecting society for compensation for noncommercial filesharing.

How do we ensure accurate division of the money?

Transparency will be critical -- the collecting society must hold its books open for artists, copyright holders, and the public to examine. The entity should be a nonprofit, and should strive to keep its administrative costs to a minimum. There are examples of similar collecting societies in the music industry, such as ASCAP and SoundExchange. We should learn from, and improve upon, their example. Giving artists a bigger voice should help ensure that their concerns with the current collecting societies are addressed.

When it comes to actually figuring out relative popularity, we need to balance the desire for perfect "census-like" accuracy with the need to preserve privacy. A system based on sampling strikes a good balance between these goals. On the one hand, in a public P2P network, it is relatively easy to find out what people are sharing. Big Champagne already does this, compiling a "Top 10" for the P2P networks. This kind of monitoring does not compromise user privacy, since this monitoring does not tie songs shared to individually identifiable information. At the same time, this general network monitoring can be complemented by closer monitoring of volunteers who will serve as the "Nielsen families" of P2P.

By combining these two methods, it should be possible to attain a high degree of accuracy, protect privacy, and prevent "cheating."

What if the music industry won't do it?

The music industry is still a long way from admitting that its existing business models are obsolete. But the current effort to sue millions American music fans into submission is destined to fail. After a few more quarters of lackluster sales, with file-sharing networks still going strong and "authorized services" failing to make up for sliding revenues, the music industry will be needing a "Plan B." We hope they will see that voluntary collective licensing is the best way forward.

If, instead, they continue their war against the Internet and continue inflicting collateral damage on privacy, innovation and music fans, then it may be time for Congress to take steps to force their hand. Congress can enact a "compulsory license" and create a collecting society to move us toward a sensible solution. Government involvement, however, should be a last resort -- the music industry has the power to implement a sensible, more flexible solution right now.

What about artists who won't join? How do we gather all the rights?

Artists and rights holders would have the choice to join the collecting society, and thereby collect their portion of the fees collected, or to remain outside the society and have no practical way to receive compensation for the file sharing that will inevitably continue. Assuming a critical mass of major music copyright owners joins the collecting society, the vast majority of smaller copyright owners will have a strong incentive to join, just as virtually all professional songwriters opt to join ASCAP, BMI or SESAC.

The complexity of music industry contracts and history make it very difficult for record labels and music publishers to be sure what rights they control. Accordingly, by joining the collecting society, copyright owners will not be asked to itemize rights, but will instead simply covenant not to sue those who pay the blanket license fee. In this way, music fans and innovators are not held back by the internal contractual squabbles that plague the music industry.

What about file sharers who won't pay?

The vast majority of file sharers are willing to pay a reasonable fee for the freedom to download whatever they like, using whatever software suits them. In addition to those who would opt to take a license if given the opportunity, many more will likely have their license fees paid by intermediaries, like ISPs, universities, and software vendors.

So long as the fee is reasonable, effectively invisible to fans, and does not restrict their freedom, the vast majority of file sharers will opt to pay rather than engage in complex evasion efforts. So long as "free-riding" can be limited to a relatively small percentage of file sharers, it should not pose a serious risk to a collective licensing system. After all, today artists and copyright owners are paid nothing for file sharing -- it should be easy to do much better than that with a collective licensing system. Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against "free-loaders." Instead of threatening them with ruinous damages, however, the collecting society can offer stragglers the opportunity to pay a fine and get legal. This is exactly what collecting societies like ASCAP do today.

What about other countries?

Non-U.S. rights holders would, of course, be welcome to join the collecting society for their fair share of the fees collected from American file sharers. As for file sharers in other countries, there is every reason to believe that if a collective licensing approach is successful in the U.S., it will receive a warm welcome and enthusiastic imitation abroad.

A relatively small number of countries today account for almost all of the revenues of the music industry. So establishing a collective licensing system in just a few countries could turn around the downward spiral in music industry revenues. The music industry already has an international "clearing" system for apportioning payments between countries.

What about the authorized music services?

The "authorized music services" like Apple's iTunes and Napster 2.0 would be free to compete against the P2P services, just as they do today. In addition, they could themselves adopt elements of P2P architectures, thereby dramatically expanding the music inventories they could offer music fans.

What's to stop the music industry from charging sky-high fees?

The enforcement costs faced by a collecting society for file sharing will keep prices in line. After all, if the society attempts to charge too much, intermediaries won't be able to bundle the fees into the cost of their products ($5/mo. license on a $50/mo. broadband account makes sense; trying to tack $100/mo. license, in contrast, won't work) and file sharers will likely rebel in droves. For example, when movie studios charged $90 for a VHS movie, they faced widespread piracy. They learned that, by lowering prices, they made more money and eliminated much of the piracy problem. In other words, reasonable pricing makes the system work for everyone.

What about movies, software, video games, and other digital content?

The music industry is the only industry that appears to be unable to adjust their business models to take file sharing into account. And it is the music industry that has been leading the way in suing ISPs, software companies, and individual music fans.

The movie industry, in contrast, is having its most profitable years in history. The software and video game industries also continue to show strong growth and profitability. Each one of these industries has taken steps to adapt their business models to the realities of file sharing.

Of course, if other industries want to form voluntary collecting societies and offer blanket licenses to file sharers, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Individuals would then be free to purchase the license if they were interested in downloading these materials from the file-sharing networks.

Note: This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license.

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

Well ?

A question I haven't seen answered
 

I'm new to all this and have a question. Let's say I've downloaded software that is generally sold at a high price. I've discovered this software sends a message "home" each time it is used. Since I never bought it, but instead downloaded it, wouldn't ity be logical to presume the version I have used has "told" its makers data base I (as in they will surely know it's me!) have this running on my machine! And then what??? Are the cop's or fed's or someone going to come arrest me?!?!?

I'm serious... I really want to know what the liability is here. I have no idea whatsoever... and now I feel I maybe should burn my hard disc.

Thanks to any who answer.:confused:

In the UK there have only been a few hundred arrests for software copyright infringment that I know of. Generally a fairly pragmatic apporach is taken - the thief is asked to pay whatever the software would have cost them and only prosecuted if they do not. I've no direct experience, but understand US software manufacturers to be more litigious and less forgiving.

Voluntary Collective Licensing
 

this sounds really good!!
i hope the music industry is clever enough to do so, the comparision with the radio is really easy to understand...

back again to the legal thing:
how do i recognise a copyright protectet file???

as long this is not possible, how can i be judged for copyright violation??

(it's like i loose a 100€-note, someone else finds it, but does not know who's the owner...)

let's say i see a file of the-artist-formerly-known-as-whoever, i surely know it's copyrighted, but if i see a file from a band called orange moon ( my own band, our songs without copyright) how shall i know, that i can download them??

Re: Voluntary Collective Licensing
 

Its your duty to ensure that you are allowed to download the files, ignorance don´t protect you.

Morgwen

Legalities
 

Lee.......Just a simple question......I purchased LimeWire Pro.....Can I get into trouble with the gov't for downloading music, even tho I paid Limewire for the Pro? In other words, does my 18 bucks keep me out of trouble??? Thanks

Re: Legalities
 

No!

You paid ONLY for Limewire not for the music or anything else you are downloading...

Morgwen

interesting debate, might I add to it?
 

Let's be serious here...

The music industry got huge ever since elvis and the beatles. It just grew and grew. Being able to put music on a record, then selling said record allowed a whole industry to spring up, selling something previously intangible.

The internet was a result of the continued advancement of computer and communication technologies. The same basic technologies that allowed the music industry to ever be conceived in the first place. But, it seems that things have flipped around again.

The problem is that the multi-billion dollar music industry understands this, and does not want to lose it's power. (As any business)

It's a very difficult debate, because the question is: Should corporations have the right to rule the public? Not just in law, but in thought as well? If I hear a good idea, and it's copywritten, the world says that I should do my best to forget what I have learnt, otherwise if I ever use that idea I will be sued.

Freedom of thought? I think not.

On one hand, if P2P networks are left alone to share anything that can be digitized, then corporations that built themselves up on being able to sell a product that can now be reproduced by ANYONE, are going to collapse. Jobs will be lost, the economy will fall into more of a depression.

If you can sell a CD for $20 that people will buy, then everyone who buys that cd is willing to work at whatever job they do for $20, for that cd. If they can pirate the cd, they will (obviously) not work that extra $20, and the world has one less worker (for that small amount...of course...you don't just download one cd....you download hundreds)

The other side is...most peopel wouldn't buy 99% of the things they download. They would just do without. But, I pay for internet, I learn how computers work, companies create the hardware, and the communication infrastructures, and I buy their products because I want to be able to do what a computer allows me to do. If you somehow made it so filesharing was IMPOSSIBLE (anything illegal), then a lot of people wouldn't have the money to own a computer, and thus, a lot of people would go without. (Yea right, like a highschool student could afford windows xp and microsoft office)

Which would collapse the computer industry.

It's a lose-lose situation. Except...

If you allow the information to be free, if you allow the music to be shared (to be honest, it's like a radio station....so what! You hear the song, big deal, if you want a nice looking cd, if you want to support the artist, if you want something without skips, or without having to screw around finding good quality songs, then you'd buy it from the record company), then people are going to be able to progress this world a lot quicker.

We're going to put ourselves into a dark age if we say all the ideas the world has learnt are to be sealed away and hidden from the people who lack the funds, but have the potential to invent and create new music, new technology, and perhaps new sciences that might eventually save this warring planet)

Not only that, but you'll have a civil war on your hands. You're going to arrest people who understand computers? You're going to arrest people who just want to hear some music? They're not SELLING the music. They're not makign a PROFIT. They're not STEALING. If someone actually wants to buy a Tool cd, they buy it from the record company. IF they bought it from some person who burns cds, then THAT is theft.

Because what is being stolen is a sale of the cd. When I download a song by metallica, it doesn't mean that I just stole from metallica. I was NOT going to pay them for that song. If I couldn't have got it, I'd never have heard it. If I never heard it, I would never know if I'd have liked it, and if I wanted to buy it, I'd never have heard it! The radio you say? Right. What radio station do you listen to that has the selection of limewire? Besides. I hate the hosts and the crappy playlist. I"ll create my OWN radio.

Think of P2P music sharing as FREE ADVERTISING FOR RECORD COMPANIES.

The real theft is the money. If someone is going to BUY a music cd, and someone goes "no no, don't buy that cd, I'll just burn you a copy for $5" then that's theft. If someone wants to hear the new Avril Lavigne cd to see if it sucks or not, and someone goes "don't buy the cd, here, I'll send you some songs" and you hear it and it SUCKS...

Well that's not theft. THat's just avril lavigne releasing bullshit. And maybe business should be how it used to be: horrible products do not sell. All this "hype" selling is nonsense.

It's like software on the internet. There's so much free-software out there that actually works better than the pay software. But, the pay software makes you think their product can do something incredible, so you buy it, try it, find out it's a waste of your money, and you get pissed off.

It's too easy to sell crap products if people can't check things out first. You can turn on a television set at best buy to see if the quality is acceptable to you. You MIGHT be able to download limited shareware versions of programs and test parts of them....but when it comes to "Am I actually going to USE this?" you don't know until after you've wasted hard earned money.

Now, it would be lovely if everyone in this world could be turned into idiot slaves who have nothing better to do than work 24/7, and waste all their money on products that suck and they will never use. But think about what would happen to the world if that were the case?

People would be poor. In every aspect of the word. The world will be poor. And the common man will become nothing more than a peon back in the 8th century. Perhaps even less.

What are the music corporations actually selling us? Cds? We can make those ourselves. THe music? Well, the authors made those. If I love the music, if I want to appreciate the authors, I will go to their concerts, buy their tshirts, and their cds and music. The music industry needs to find ways to deliver something a bit more valuable to the public than CD's with a bit of art and a track list. Why not release cd/dvds that have music videos of all the songs? That would be nice. Spend that money used to sue people and develop a new way to sell their product.

Perhaps there was a time when people were slaves. Then there was a time when we were sold the illusion that we were not. Now they want us to be slaves again, and put up with their idealogical business models where the public buys crap they don't want because they don't have the right to try it first.

It seems that the music industry wants the court to view computers are weapons. That can be misused like a gun, or used responsibly.

But it's not so black and white. Any restriction on computers will eventually turn into restrictions on the human mind. Computers amplify human thought. We can 'remember' more, 'communicate' better, faster...you want humans to be telepathic? Stick a microphone/speaker in your ear that has a wireless network hook up, and then start an audio conversation with your friend across the world.

You want an improved mind and memory? A computer helps process information, and store massive amounts of information. I might be able to hum a few bars of some song, but I could never repeat the whole thing note for note like a computer allows me. But the computer IS me. It's my thoughts, my words, my choices. Taking a look at my system is like taking a look inside my mind.

I hope everyone realizes that. Think about how scary it woudl be if the government could control your own mind.

I think they need to stop blaming the public, and blame themselves. If a bank can be broken into with some bug in their system software, then should they be allowed to pass a law that says no one is allowed to exploit that bug? Or should they hire a software programmer to fix the bug?

Things change, but if you look at it carefully, it always stays the same. And history always repeats itself if it is not understood.

All I know is, if my friends, my community, my FAMILY were being thrown in prisons because we were sharing MUSIC....

I might just revolt.
They might just revolt.
The world might just tear itself apart.

I really don't want to live in a world where I'm a slave.
Besides...

You'll never enslave me. Not while I can still die.

Mmm...WAR.

There's just too much to say. What about factories losing jobs to machines? Should the development of robotics be banned because stupid people with no other skills lose their jobs? I'm sorry guys, but this is just what happens. The world is constantly changing, and when you really can't change quick enough, you die.

And don't flatter yourself. Each one of us will eventually reach that stage. So let's just accept life for what it is, and deal with it, instead of trying to tear apart what is real.

Impressive. Fallacy-o-matic gives the above diatribe a whopping 27 points. Have you considered a career writing religious literature, Aro ?

• Appeal to Authority
• Appeal to Common Practice
• Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
• Appeal to Fear
• Appeal to Popularity
• Appeal to Ridicule
• Bandwagon
• Begging the Question
• Biased Sample
• Burden of Proof
• Confusing Cause and Effect
• Division
• False Dilemma
• Genetic Fallacy
• Guilt By Association
• Hasty Generalization
• Ignoring A Common Cause
• Middle Ground
• Misleading Vividness
• Post Hoc
• Questionable Cause
• Relativist Fallacy
• Slippery Slope
• Special Pleading
• Spotlight
• Straw Man
• Two Wrongs Make A Right

Actually...

with the exception of...
... which is - putting it gently here (of course) - utter nonsensical illogical gibberish...
... and a rather soppy thing a wee moment before the end (where he uses the "R" word) that gives me a bit of a problem - (Possibly 'wind' ?)...

Aro has stated a great many things that are real... He has also left out quite a bit that would be even more supportive of his argument... Perhaps he was being gentle for starters ???

Perhaps he was being wise and trying to make it more 'palatable' ???

Perhaps he is completely nuts and believes in 'vicarious learning' !!!!! THE mark of a madman !
lol

I'll put my two cents in.

For the file-sharer to have committed theft, the government must prove that the file-sharer's act was intentional.

While it's true that anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time, for prosecutors to waste the public's money regarding file sharer prosecutions is scandalous during this time of war against terrorism.

Civil suits are another matter, but still, a plaintiff would be required to show that:1) defendants knew or should have known that the person from whom they downloaded the software did not have permission to share and 2) the defendant installed and used the software.

There are two ways of looking at this issue thought the use of analogies, first is the copy analogy and then the open house analogy. The copy analogy works like this, say you go to a Barns&Noble or a Boarders book store and take with you a note pad and a pen, If you go in there and copy quotes and pages is that stealing? Boarders and Barns&Noble have never sued any one over this one that I know of because even if you could make exact copies with a small page scanner the truth is that all you have are just copies, same applies with music, you don’t have the original album and that therefore means that in truth you don’t have the actual product. Artist still make money off of CD sales because fans will still buy them cuz they like the music. Now onto the open house analogy, If I had an Open House and anyone could came in and play video games, listen to music or use my Internet connection to make e-mails then is that stealing? I still paid for the products being used but the people coming into my house never paid for them, is that stealing? Ultimately I agree it is an issue of semantics but the actual concept of it is in no way an infringement. Its not artists who are hurt by this, it is record companies because like all things they are starting to become obsolete. They are forgetting that one of their primary reasons to existence is to help spread an artists work so that way they can develop a fan base and ultimately share the artists music with the world. I ask how can this be done if the only way of doing so is providing it just to people who can afford it?

Lack of Understanding
 

My comments are directed at Barwire ---

If really understood how this whole process worked you would know that the government has to prove no such thing.
Most of what you said is irrelevant.


Here are the facts:

1. You agree not to use your Internet connection for illegal activity including but not limited to acts of copyright infringment i.e. unauthorized distribution / reproduction of copyrighted materials. (Check the TOS and AUP for your ISP.)

2. When it is found that you are doing this, you are notified i.e given an opportunity to make corrections. Perhaps you are sharing stuff by (insert your favorite excuse, rationalization here). The point is after you been notified you must take some action to correct it.

3. If you are found to have continuted your actions and have ignore the warnings for whatever reasons. Further action may be taken against you.



The point is -- there's a chain of events that causes a person to end up in the situation you outlined.

Copyright Infringment Primer
 

These comments are directed to Red_starr

Although well intended, your comments are just another example of a gross rationalization. Here's why the ways you and others

choose to look at the issue are based on your interests in the matter that is, getting stuff for free.

Here's what people who make such argument ignore.

1. There's a difference between rights and privileges. - Rights are derived from ownership. Therefore, if I CREATE

something I own it. Because I OWN it then I have the RIGHT TO DICTATE its use.


2. As a consumer (the person who DID NOT create the said content but is interested in it.) I have to adhere to the

provisions dictated by the content owner, creator or other representative. If I don't like the terms I can choose not to
acquire the content.

3. If I choose to acquire the content I am offered several privileges (notice not rights). Those privileges usually include

personal consumption of the materials at will. These privileges usually exclude reproduction and distribution without FIRST

obtaining permission from the OWNER, CREATOR, REPRESENTATIVE.

It is around this issue that this whole drama is born.

It appears that a segment of the population has a problem separating the fact that when they buy media i.e. CDs DVD or

subscription services. What they are paying for is a) The physical or digital distribution mechanism used to deliver the content and b) the privilege to consume its contents in ways specified by the creator.

If you don't like it you don't have to buy the content. This is your only viable solution. Doing anything else (downloading it, reproducing it etc.) Is a violation of the creators rights and will only lead to you suffering the conseqences of your actions.

Now obviously, if you do these things in the confines of your own home then are they a violation of the creators RIGHTS? Of
course it is. I want to be clear about this.

Here's where all of the confusion comes in.

a) Unuathorized Reproduction and Distribution is prohibited. (means: if you didn't get permission from us to do this then
you don't have it period. -- and you will be subject to prosecution if you do any of the above.)


--- What if I wanted to make a backup of my media? (see a)
--- What if I wanted to convert my DVD / Music collection to AVI's and MP3's? So that I can watch on my computer etc (see a)
--- What if I wanted to give copies of my DVD / Music collection to my grandmother? (see a)

You can pretty much get away with doing any of the above things with little or no threat of persecution. Why?
because any of the above actions constitute a level of piracy that is tolerable. Why? because under two points the

consumption of the content is limited to the person who has the privilege to consume it. The third point is a level of

piracy most content creators expect that is, a limited amount of piracy.

b) Peer-to-peer technology, increased access to broadband and a lot of generation Y-ers have turn this who situation into a

real problem.

-- Peer-to-peer technology is a super-distribution technology. It turns the whole distribution model on its head. You can

take one set of content and immediately make it available to literally millions of people. The spread of the content

increases exponentially. Can you see why this might be a problem to the content owners if people take their content and make

it available via such a system? (This is why they are trying to kill the technology --which I think is a bad idea.)

-- Increased access to broadband -- The higher the speeds, the greater the penetration makes the impact unauthorized

distribution a serious threat worthy of the current actions to try to control it.


-- A new generation -- I'm a generation X'er a working professional. I pay more in taxes a year than most of the people in

the peer-to-peer community make in a year. I limit my spending to things that I need and I can afford to buy the things that

I want and before I would afford to buy the things that I wanted I simply did without and if I feel that I don't like the

terms or that something cost to much I simply keep my money. The point of all of this, is that this is how our economic

systems works and this is how the vast majority of people behave in that system.

Now, if you are a person of little means and little responsibility you will have an entirely different view of the situation.

But understand that your view is influenced by your situation. People who sign the back of checks have a completely

different view from the people who sign the front of them.

In other words, no industry can compete with free but pirates can't win without losing. The entire system is against you.
So people can talk all they want in forums about how someone should stand up an fight the good fight. However, I an assure

you that if you don't understand how this all works and furthermore don't accept what I've had to say about this. You will

learn what those who have settled have learned and that is, it's simply not worth it.


--Nothing I've stated here should be considered an endorsement of copyright infringment. I respect the rights of creators.
This information is intended to educate the P2P community about the risks of piracy and copyright infringment.

oy fatty

i thought about that.. is limewire legal but if you think

X---->y y------->z

when Y purchases a product off of X it isnt really thiers anymore.

Its like saying

I brought a 2 lollys from asda and gave 1 to my friend
Asda couldnt take my friend to court for theft.

So if you just download music and just listen to it on your pc and thats all is that illegal like can you get in trouble for that?


Ty rogue

Oh lol thanks.But how would you get cought?

Rogue :cool:

Copying Stealing and all this foolishness.
 

Alright. Let me put in my little two bit too.

Let's say that a record company just releases a new album for this artist (X). I go to the store and buy this album from X. Isn't this X's album for me to do whatever I want to do with it. Isn't the CD mine. They can't take it back from me, if I paid for it.

Now if I decided to share my paid-for CD (X's Album) with people, and people took it from me, then whoever took it from me is not doing anyting illegal. Right? Because it was my CD which I bought.
If I bought it, then I have the right to do whatever I want with it. Share it and copy it.

Now if I copied it and started to sell it that is illegal. This is one of the reasons, why (these people) do not want us to Reproduce it. Because if I reproduced it Z times and sold it, then it would not be the music company making the profit. It would be me. Now this is illegal.

But to buy it then to share it for free is not illegal. Right?

Somebody want to tell me their thoughts now?

KOOL, Mr. Anonymous:cool:

Ignore the username
 

What about the "FBI Warning" they show on movie DVDs and videos? I remeber the gist of it was that you could copy it and play it as much as you wanted for private use.

Do I have this right?

Does it allow p2p filesharing of movies ripped from DVDs/videocasettes?

Still Infringment
 

Dear Tha Anonymous 1,

The whole problem with your argument has been covered before but let me recap. When you buy a CD it is true that you physically own the CD. However, the contents of that CD are protected by copyright. Just about all music and movies place restrictions on redistribution -- that is, your ability to give away or to sell unauthorized copies. There is no distinction as to whether you do it for fun or for profit.

Typically it says "Unauthorized reproduction or distribution is strictly prohibited" and NOT "Unauthorized reproduction or distribution is strictly prohibited unless you are giving it away for free then it's okay."

redistribution
 

Dear FBI,

No you cannot share ripped copies of your DVDs and music disks that would be unauthorized reproduction.

What If...
 

What if over the years...myself being >50y/o..I had purchased every song I now have as mp3/wma but due to a variety of circumstances no longer had physical possession of the original vynal, tape, or cd (e.g. the vynal got scratched so bad it was unplayable, it got burnt up in a housefire, destroyed in a flood, broken when someone sat on it at a party, etc or the 8track that died the same fate as my cassettes: cassette tape that was eaten by my player, melted in the sun, was contaminated by sand at the beach, etc. or the cd got warped on my dashboard, became useless due to age deterioration, etc.)

or GOD FORBID SOME AS*hOLE STOLE MY MUSIC FROM ME!!!!

DO I STILL HAVE RIGHTS TO THE MUSIC I PAID TO USE & IF SO DOES THAT MEAN I CAN DUPLICATE MY MUSIC LIBRARY WHICH I PAID FOR >40 YS BY REPLACING THE LOST MUSIC VIA P2P?

THE ISSUES BECOME COMPLICATED, DON'T THEY?

Hi there guys:)im a newbie.
I know i should read all this thread before asking,but i was after a pretty quick answer please?
I can just download Limewire and download music,and that is Legal for me to use is it? as many songs as i like?
Thankx very much.

So, will someone just set it straight for me?

If at this very moment, I go and download LimeWire, and I start downloading songs, will I get busted for it?Am I breaking some law?Or am I not?

I just want a simple answer, yes or no, not a maybe, not a kind of, and not a yes and no at the same time.

I agree, I'm tired of reading answers that sounds like maybe, don't know, kinda, well it goes like this and a bunch of details. A simple yes or no will do.

Hi there.
So in other words then every song you download off limewire,is ilegal,because all songs are copywright.
Why im asking this,is because not long here were i am,on the news there was a young person that did this and didnt know anything like us,then his mum got a letter and a really really hefty fine.

I saw one of those on the internet, and I don't want to end up like him. ESPECIALLY at this time of year.

I know,and it was a hefty fine,prison material.
Yeah like i say,every single song on limewire is illegal innit?
If not then how do you know the legal ones you are allowed to download?

Re: What If...
 

Any answers Merry Pranksters?

Had both blown off by a bloody landmine...haven't had a leg to stand on since...

Here's another interesting situation:
What about the mp3 players that record directly from radio. THOSE seem to me to be more "pirating" yet even RCA -which is a "record label" has that built into some of its players.