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

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?

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

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.

?

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.

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

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.

?

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.

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

"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.

__________________
Fusion for REAL!--CDex 1.51--Wackyuses--Bitzi - Check Files Before Download !--.mp3 File Name Change Problems? Try Rename-It!--Alternate PORTS--Avast- Anti-Virus--WindowWasher--IrfanView--PC Pitstop - Test your PC !--Mac OSX Troubleshooting--GO .ape ! - For 'Lossless' Audio Compression--Port :6346 - Test If It Is 'Blocked'--Cole2k Codecs--OldVersion - Newer isn't always better !
Nod32 - Free Virus Scan: Use ESET's Online Antivirus Scanner

Tomorrow's forecast:
Sunni in places, Shi'ite in others...

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

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

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 !