Gnutella Forums - The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing

Page 3 of 3

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gnutella Forums (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/)

- Open Discussion topics (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/open-discussion-topics/)

- - The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/open-discussion-topics/16808-legal-aspect-file-sharing.html)

etj	December 25th, 2005 10:05 AM

theft

the problem with trying to "DEFINE" this term is as with anything else: interpretation.

By definition the word FELONIOUS can mean of or relating to FELONY why by law is a crime punishible with 12 months or more of imprisonment if found guilty of said crime.

All states within the United States of America have a law which some commonly call BRCSP, bying,receiving,concealing stolen property.
Property has been changed to INCLUDE intellectual or NON-TANGIBLE things.

The bottom line is that when someone produces something, they do so for their FINANCIAL GAIN and when you "share" it with someone you violate the law. Any moron that thinks it's PERFECTLY OK to do so wouldn't have a problem with me going into his bank account and taking his/her paycheck weekly; going into the garage and stealing the vehicle; taking his/her lunch JUST BEFORE it's been touched.

Come on people.. THINK!!! What dipped-in-crap for brains thinks it's ok to take, use etc. other people's things without permission or proper monetary compensation.

Smart like Rock. Fast like tree!

Quote:

Originally posted by sberlin
actually, leeware, this is the definition of theft, from dictionary.com :

---
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
---

note that theft requires "every part of the property stolen must be removed." when a song (or anything else that has a copyright) is copied, nothing is removed, it is simply duplicated. that is why copyrights exist: to prevent unauthorized duplication.

people cannot steal or thieve a copyrighted piece unless they physically remove the media from the store it's being sold at, which is a crime in the sense that you're depriving the store of its ability to sell something it purchased.

the digitalization of media has simply enabled people to spread information without having to worry about the initial creation being depleted. it's a way of providing never-ending resources.

copyrights are artificial limits on resources, a way of maintaining a capitalistic view on resources, where the ruling class can limit what the peasants can use. now, this is done under the auspices of 'allowing greater innovation and invention', but this use is patently absurd in the current context of copyrights.

no one is stealing when they are copying. to say that someone is stealing is insane, because they are actually creating. to use a quote i once heard somewhere, "if i have an apple and you have an apple, and we exchange apples, we each have one apple. if i have an idea and you have an idea, and we exchange ideas, we each have two ideas." this is the same with digital media, we can copy the apple so we both have two apples -- no one is losing.

the RIAA and associates are simply using a business model that cannot survive in the current world. they need to use true innovation and invention to come up with a better plan, instead of simply trying to change the definition of words and make everyone thieves.

in 1991 the Supreme Court ruled, in Feist vs Rural Telephone Co., that collections of facts cannot be copyrighted. now how is it that collections of facts, such as a definitive proof that 'using X will achieve Y in the fastest possible way' can now be copyrighted so that people can be put in jail for using that fact without permission from the copyright holder? through a *******ization of law -- allowing loopholes for those that show 'business models depend on it'.

it's as if we're allowing companies and theories to take on the importance of an actual life. killing a business model or using a theory without consent has taken the same kind of ire as killing a person or enslaving an individual. why can't the distinction be seen anymore?

just my thoughts. feel free to copy, theorize on, mutate, individualize, or do whatever you want with them. i won't sue you.

etj	December 25th, 2005 10:09 AM

Re: What If...

My 1969 mustang was "misplaced" will FOrd give me another one? Does this give me the right to "steal" one?

Of course not.

A one-time purchase of something doesn't give you a "lifetime" right to it. As long as you can "posess" it, you can use it. If you sell the record collection, or otherwise have no posession of it, you're just out of luck.

Quote:

Originally posted by HeadCraft
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?

HeadCraft

December 26th, 2005 02:37 AM

Re: Re: What If...

Quote:

Originally posted by etj
My 1969 mustang was "misplaced" will FOrd give me another one? Does this give me the right to "steal" one?

Of course not.

A one-time purchase of something doesn't give you a "lifetime" right to it. As long as you can "posess" it, you can use it. If you sell the record collection, or otherwise have no posession of it, you're just out of luck.

US courts disagree with you when it comes to Audio/Video material. Court decisions have stated that anyone has THE RIGHT to one backup copy for their own personal use.

mynameisearl

December 26th, 2005 06:00 AM

fundemental question?

Question?

who is or should be held accountable for the copyright infringment.

The producer of the material?

The consumer that buys the CD , DVD ext then uploads it to the net?

Or the the third party that downloads it off the net?

The producer of any written or recorded material has the responsiblity of copyrighting and then protecting said material.
But buy broadcasting such material and making it availible to the general public the producer of such material gives "limited" licence to basically anyone who hears and or records the material.

such as through (mass media) radio and TV ext, as long as it is not mass produced and sold for profit.

a good example would be recording your favorite TV program on your VCR to watch later when you have the time.

The consumer that buys the material is entering into an agreement with the producer of said material....do to the legal verbage contained in the copyright. And has an obligation to use the product responsibly. But has also pruchaced a "limited" licence
to the said material.

The consumer goes home uploads the material onto his computer so he can listen to his favorite music while he surfs the net. But includes it in his shared files.

The third party which has not purchased the product and has not entered into any agreement with any producer of copyrighted material and therefore not obligated to protect said material downloads it off of the net via a file sharing program.

Who has violated the agreement? The consumer. But he has limited licence.

The third party copier? But he has never entered into any agreement with anyone and because it was accessed through (mass media) should also be granted "limited" Licence.....is always implied when material is broadcased over a mass media outlet.

The producer of said material? which has made their product availible through (Mass Media) that grants the general public limited licence to view,listen to and record said material with a VCR ,Tivo,taperecorder,media player,ext

Who's responsible?

ut,oh I better go unplug my Tivo before I infringe on spongebob squarepants rights!

OR is this just the price of fame and fortune?

etj	December 26th, 2005 06:15 AM

Re: Re: Re: What If...

Quote:

Originally posted by HeadCraft
US courts disagree with you when it comes to Audio/Video material. Court decisions have stated that anyone has THE RIGHT to one backup copy for their own personal use.

yeah,I'd forgotten about this one. Still, I just get the impression people want something for nothing.
The facts remain that each and every one of us require money to survive these days. How do people get money? Most work for it. IT's not right to assume that because you can--that you should.
I've had plenty of opportunities to steal something that I thought was rediculously attractive and the owner was a complete fool for leaving items unprotected--but instead I didn't; nor did I leave it for some theif.

etj	December 26th, 2005 06:23 AM

loss of revenue

The question I'd like to know is just hiw much money does the record industry lose because of this?
the undustry claims in the millions. Personally, I've not purchased a CD or other form of music since my teens and early 20's. I have a radio, and I used to DL from Winmx until it shut down. Now I just figure it's not worth the threat.
The songs don't have enough value to me to risk paying fines or worse.
I don't think the music industry is losing anything. I believe that most people downloading music aren't the same ones that will go to the store and purchase.

HeadCraft

December 27th, 2005 07:07 AM

Re: loss of revenue

Quote:

Originally posted by etj

I don't think the music industry is losing anything. I believe that most people downloading music aren't the same ones that will go to the store and purchase.

I also believe that being able to preview music via the internet, whether P2P, freebie incentives of MMJ, Rhapsody, itunes, Yahoo music, etc. does more Good than harm: If I have an opportunity to preview tunes w/o standing at the sampling places in Wal-Mart or Sam Goodies ("record stores" ad Infinitum) I may be more inclined to purchase the CD if I have had an opportunity to listen in the comfort of my own home.

A large portion of shared music is HORRIBLE quality, vocals sound like the singer is in the bottom of a Well usually...BUT if it sparks my interest I will be open to purchasing the entire CD just to have a quality recording...as long as some company like Sony doesn't install a Rootkit on my 'puter....BAD Sony!!

etj	December 28th, 2005 04:37 AM

Re: Re: loss of revenue

so true,
I wonder ohw many other people will try before they buy.
I've purchased CD's, tapes, records etc. that had one good song and no others. I was frustrated and felt ripped off.
Also, about the quality. You're absolutely right.

I really don't think it's completely right, but the music industry is just whining like the post office and everyone else. Things are just changing. Get used to it.
I have no problems going to a music and paying a subscription fee but I'm not going to pay $2 per song when the quality sucks and I could have bought the CD myself for the same price.

Quote:

Originally posted by HeadCraft
I also believe that being able to preview music via the internet, whether P2P, freebie incentives of MMJ, Rhapsody, itunes, Yahoo music, etc. does more Good than harm: If I have an opportunity to preview tunes w/o standing at the sampling places in Wal-Mart or Sam Goodies ("record stores" ad Infinitum) I may be more inclined to purchase the CD if I have had an opportunity to listen in the comfort of my own home.

A large portion of shared music is HORRIBLE quality, vocals sound like the singer is in the bottom of a Well usually...BUT if it sparks my interest I will be open to purchasing the entire CD just to have a quality recording...as long as some company like Sony doesn't install a Rootkit on my 'puter....BAD Sony!!

Eman1992

December 28th, 2005 02:40 PM

ok this has nothing to do with the Thread

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME I DONT KNOW HOW TO DELETE THE HISTORY ON Limewire PRO 4.8.1 SO SOMEONE MESSEGE BACK PLEASE POST SOMETHING

mrsmoose

June 28th, 2006 04:21 PM

Is it possible to un-upload music from Limewire, per the artist's request?

Hi LeeWare,
I ask this question, because the artist has asked me. I misunderstood what permission I had, and loaded some music into MY library. I am presuming that means it is available for unknown parties to then search for this music and download a copy of it from me. Is this correct? The artist has some live music I am welcome to share, but apparently not a recorded release. How can I make this right?

Thanks,
mrsmoose1478

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeWare

There is a raging debate over the legal aspects of file-sharing. I hope to spread some light on this issue.

I am starting this thread because I've been asked this question quite often.

A. The Concept Of File-sharing in itself is NOT illegal.

B. Contrary to Popular Belief (downloading certain material unfortunately is stealing-based-on-the-law) - I'll attempt to explain the controversy.

b1. Stealing means to take the property of another without permission. So the argument goes: (if x -->y and y-->z)

If x owns/produces a product and sells it to y and y in turn shares-it with z (did z commit theft?)

The answer is a matter of perspective:
z did not commit an act of theft against y (this is where most people stop in their arguments)

BUT z did commit an act of theft against x (by law because z did not obtain permission from x to acquire the product and or resource).

Now y did not commit theft but did infringe on the rights of x because when y purchased a product from x one of the conditions of that sale was to abide by the conditions of using the product those rights are clearly spelled out in the fine print on most material.

If you go to court this is what's going to be at issue, so the judge does not care about how you perceived this agreement and the issue will be decided on the fact presented.

C. What about fair use?

Again the consumers rights are explained in legal verbage of the material. However people are not getting in trouble for using their products fairly they are getting in trouble for violating the terms of the agreements they made when purchasing certain digital media.

Nobody has gone to jail for converting their media to another format (MP3/AVI etc) for their personal use. (however this can sometimes be a violation of an agreement (read the fine print.))

What has drawn attention to this issue is that people take those digital copies and share them in a public place (the Internet) where people (anonymous users) can obtain this material. This issue would not exist if people did not do this.

Finally, there is a process for obtaining permission for certain types of additional uses.

hope this helps

http://www.leeware.com

LeeWare

June 28th, 2006 04:47 PM

Making it right!

mrsmoose1478,

A simple way to right this particular wrong is to simply stop sharing the content that is infringing. There's nothing you can do about the stuff that's be uploaded onto the network from your computer.

Hope this helps.

mrsmoose

June 28th, 2006 05:34 PM

Okay, next dumb question: do you happen to know how I stop sharing?

mrsmoose

June 28th, 2006 06:24 PM

Legal aspects...

Okay, I figured it out...thanks for your help!
:D

AVDPrayer

July 13th, 2006 06:22 PM

re:

So is limewire illigal or not?

6_pac

July 13th, 2006 10:21 PM

AVDPrayer,

The LimeWire program is 100% legal:).

It is legal for you to share your stuff, e.g. your photos, recipes, home movies, that audio file of you singing in the shower. You can also download similar things from other people.

Where you run into trouble is when you violate copyright laws by downloading and or sharing (mostly) movies(DVDs), and music(CDs). Basically anything that you can purchase in a store is protected by copyright laws.

Copyright laws are different in different countries, so it's hard to answer your question completely without knowing where your from.

So to summarize, the LimeWire program is legal, but how you choose to use it may not be. You should check what your local laws are before using LimeWire.

Newlimewireuser

July 16th, 2006 01:19 PM

Can someone please explain to me how I can download music from Limewire yet still have file sharing disabled? The reason I don't want to fileshare is because I don't want to get in trouble at my college... as it's illegal and kids have been put on probation for it. The problem is that Im seeing "individual" shared files and stuff and I don't know what this all means. I tried reading up on it and asking techie friends of mine, but no one seems to be able to answer my questions. I'd appreciate it f someone would get back to me via email at teenatunes88@hotmail.com OR at Ladyjournalistt (two t's) on AIM. Please, any help is much appreciated. (ASAP)

I just purchased Limewire Pro yesterday & I am still trying to become familiar with it. In fact this is the first time I have ever downloaded music. Thanks everyone.

-Christina

a white rabbit

July 16th, 2006 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl2973

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.

..copyright only lasts a certain time, 50yrs tops i think but it's country specific, some music is out of copyright therefore, but only the music, not the version..ie a 1920's jazz number played by the now long deceased is fine, the same played by modern jazz musician isn't, as broadcasting rights kick in..

Menno

May 26th, 2007 09:19 PM

im new here where can i go to report illegal material being shared? likecrime scene stuff, or stuff illegally graphic.? please tell me as soon as you read this, i really need to report something and im almost panicing at how illegal this stuff is where can i teport a user who has this illegal stuff?
please tell me im abut to los it!!!!!!

unholy_jesus

May 26th, 2007 10:24 PM

how does limewire feel tho?

limewire is widely used mainly to download stuff we did not actually pay for...but i sure hope limewire was expecting for it's own "pro version" of it's own program being pirated...i hope.... :blink:

gropalido

July 20th, 2008 04:00 AM

is limewire connection anonymous?

(windows xp pro; limewire 4.18; cable internet connection)
Hello everyone
I am concerned with getting into troubles for sharing.
Can the parties sharing files with Limewire be identified in any way an tracked?
Are their IP addresses available to each other or to others?
Can anybody snoop my activities in the network and identify me?
thank you

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/images/buttons/quote.gif

mfitz

July 28th, 2008 02:21 PM

limewire song downloads

With all this info on theft, copyright infrignement, etc is limewire only making non-copyrighted songs, video available to its customers for download?:confused:

tinkntig

August 4th, 2008 10:46 AM

Infringement Notice From My ISP

Well, after finally getting torrents figured out, I downloaded a couple of movies. One being the Please read the forum Rules Shortly thereafter my ISP gets a message from:

Mark Ishikawa
Chief Executive Officer
BayTSP, Inc.
PO Box 1314
Los Gatos, CA 95031

That I have infringed the copyrights for that movie/company. My ISP of course forwarded it to me. Any thoughts/comments out there?? Thanks.

__________________________________________________
Edited to comply with the House Rules.
Warez, copyright violation, or any other illegal activity may NOT be linked or expressed in any form.

Lord of the Rings

December 3rd, 2008 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfitz (Post 323881)

With all this info on theft, copyright infrignement, etc is limewire only making non-copyrighted songs, video available to its customers for download?:confused:

LW has nothing whatsever to do with 'what' files are shared on the gnutella network, in the same way Bearshare, Shareaza, morhpeus, phex, Frostwire, etc. are. Gnutella is p2p (peer to peer; person to person sharing of information.) Gnutella is sharing files from one person to another, NOTHING whatsoever to do with a server holding 'any' files, except those spammed by the RIAA, MPAA, etc.'s sponsored spam customers. The RIAA & MPAA have broken 'so many' USA & international laws & behave like Crime Syndicates. In fact worse; Beware of Fake files in search results; Terrorists of the internet, sponsoring their spam customers to spread VIRUSES worldwide, without the slightest bit of a feeling of guilt about doing it. They are not sorry for their actions. How guilty is that! ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinkntig (Post 324485)

That I have infringed the copyrights for that movie/company. My ISP of course forwarded it to me. Any thoughts/comments out there?? Thanks

When it gets to that stage then obviously stop sharing that file, obviously on the 'hotlist' of files not to share at that time. This generally applies to most recent ones. Of course you should 'not' share copyright material !!!

If I go to George's place (my friend/neighbour) to watch his video, of course I am in breach of copyright for a public broadcast, or at least that is how MPAA would 'like' to define it, but of course that's not true unless you wish to allow them to pressure government into allowing such. :blink: (Of course you are aware of 'where' your local & regional politicians stand on this matter right? If not find out ! ;) MPAA & RIAA are making secret pacts with government officials all the time to 'make new laws' in their favor, and you just stand by ... & complain later?)

jonanon

November 15th, 2009 08:19 AM

Anybody know what the RIAA's current legal strategy is?

On July 18, 2009, the RIAA was awarded damages of nearly two million dollars in a lawsuit against Jammie Thomas for file-sharing.

The RIAA has filed new cases in September 2009 and October 2009.

Does anybody know what the RIAA's current legal strategy is?

There is so much moralizing and polemic and chest-thumping and self-justification on this topic.

That's not what I'm asking for.

Does anybody have some facts? Recent facts?

Thank you.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 AM.

Page 3 of 3

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page