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?