1. It important to understand the distinction between making a profit and operating. LeeWare Development does not make a profit from its current business. I doubt that most filesharing programs do. However, that doesn't mean that I can't cover my operational cost which I think most P2P development companies do because their biggest investment is in talent / time not capital.

2. The next time your on LimeWire or any gnutella based host do a search for VDL -

Download the Video commentary "Taxing the public to pay for P2P"

Re: Post here strategies to protect against R.I.A.A. suits, hiding your IP Address, etc..
 

Now... by "protect ourselves" you had in mind, hide your IP, get some untracable rauters etc. Right?...
You see, I agree with you, but only if you want to hide "in the meantime"... And thats not a bad Idea... It's running away from law, hide only prove that you're innocent.
But... people, please, you have to understand that one important thing... HIDING IS NOT A SOLUTION! It will just get you by for a few months. You wanna know what is the only solution possible?... It's everyone of you and you public opinion. It's your letters, emails, phone calls saying, that you're outraged what is happening and what Entartainment industry is doing, directed to your governor, or anybody that could have some kind of influence on the law and legislature in general... Sure... most of you will just think..." I'm against RIAA etc, but let others handle that"...
SUUUUre... kepp thinking like that, but do you just know what happens if the public won't speak up and stand up for what's right?... First, (that is what they are actually trying to pass) they will be allowed to just browse you PC if they suspect there might be some copyright infrigement going on... In other words... they will invade your privacy whenever they want and blame it on "we have suspected him". PC- PERSONAL Computer, won't be "personal" anymore. Yup... but it's probably just a beginning... today it's invadind your computer, tomorrow, you will have a video camera in every room in your house... and they will say-

"it's because we need to know if they aren't planing to violate copyright laws... Democracy?... Who said democracy?... Yes we know 90% of population is against such measures, but we're sorry, we're the ones with money... Sue us.... Oppps... you can't afford a fancy lawyer as we can... I guess you will lose then... ah well..."......
GET IT?

Of course, I have exagerated it a bit, but it really isn't that much from the facts...
Read, learn and educate others about what is going on...

(of course it was directed specificaly to you Nightbird, only to everyone in general...

take care...

Be a wireless ghost

Spoofing your IP is illegal and somewhat pointless.

deepblue

It's not illegal (at least in countries/states where proxies with NAT are not illegal). However it isn't possible to do that with TCP connections (and that's what LimeWire is using for file transfers).

Lee, nobody wants to hear your self-promoting diatribes any longer. Christ. The reason this thread was started was to protect us from the greedy *******s in the RIAA. The origin of most LimeWire content can be traced back to a CD someone purchased. That person MADE THE CHOICE to put it on a file-sharing network. It's on a large scale, but it's still sharing whether they like it or not -- and they don't. If you know of ways to stop the RIAA from taking back what's ours, let us know. Otherwise, buzz off.

A solution to the problem
 

#1 You're a little late to this party.

#2 Don't share copyrighted material and your problems will magically disapear.

Flip side?
 

A couple of questions for the group for which I would like your thoughts:

1. What legitimate reason have the powers that be lengthened copyright protection (twice) from the original 20 yrs. to now 75 yrs?(don't quote me on the years, it doesn't really matter if the numbers are accurate)

2. If I have music on cassette that I bought before CD's were available, do I have a legal right to download songs from that cassette?

3. If the answer to 2. is yes, then a viable reason for sharing copyrighted content is to allow folks to upgrade the quality of their existing library.

4. How am I to fully evaluate music for purchase if:
a) I can get a whopping 30 secs from any Amazon.com type site
b) If I open a CD I can't return it except for another copy of the same CD (at most music stores)
c) ClearChannel and other conglomerate corporations control all the broadcast media and limit my opportunity to hear new and different music
d) Listen.com and the like has an astronomically small fraction of actual music and most of it is not downloadable (try it, I did.)
e) Musicmatch et.al. doesn't let you identify a particular song to listen to (if it's not in their approved library)
f) Labelling of music doesn't provide much insight into its content or quality
g) Listening to entire records in music stores on well-used and often icky (technical term) headphones isn't a particularly viable or pleasant experience and is often limited to the cd's of the store's choosing

5. Isn't it interesting that given all of the above, I'm expected to worry about the copyright holders?

6. I would like punitive damages for all the crappy a** songs I now OWN a license to, having bought full cd's, only to find I despise most of the songs on it. The RIAA owes me some money or some quality music (I have the $10,000 worth of CD's to prove it.)

Food for thought. Comments welcome (including from Leeware whose knowledge is clearly very strong.)

Truth About the MPAA and RIAA
 

Just a few candid answers to your questions (I don't think that anyone will like these but they are true.)

#1 Opportunity for continuous profit.

How many people buy DVDs of movies they've either saw at the movies, rented or have on VHS?
How many people have exactly the same music on both CDs and Tape?
How many people buy copy after copy of the latest and greatest software products but use less than 20%
of its functionality?
How many people buy the lastest and greatest computer technology when machines that are 5 years old are sufficient for
most peoples needs?

The answer to these questions is enough to encourage the creation of whole industries selling people things they don't need.


#2 Most people rationalize (find a good reason to do something) but fail to see that a rationalization is not the same as a legal right to do something.
Therefore no. I'll explain why please spread the word. One of the things that makes our rights important in this country at least is that
everyone has rights including the much hated RIAA and MPAA therfore a persons rights only go as far as not infringing on someone elses rights. This is the foundation of our system.

Therefore the MPAA and the RIAA are groups that represent multiple content producers. These content producers have the right to seek profit for the use and or distribution of their products. They the content producers dictate the terms of any agreements not the consumers (notice producers --> consumers) not the other way around. The consumers can and often determine the success or failure of various markets. This is very effective when done legally and not very effective if done illegally.

Consider that most of the arguments against the RIAA and MPAA come not from people such as myself (a person who has a ligitimate interest in P2P technology) or the P2P developers themselves but rather from users who {believe} that they own the rights to do as they please with media that has been licensed to them for personal use and not public distribution.

This is always the issue and in the end these users will loose out but ultimately we all loose out due to increased network monitoring and attacks on the technology and not the problem.

Hopes that this clarifies things a bit.

Customers should be #1 not the RIAA
 

Leeware,

Thanks for your input. However, I think that in your representation of the market place, you're not recognizing that consumers have more than one way to move the market, all of which are legitimate:

1. Don't buy the product at all.
2. Find alternatives to the product (e.g. Linux in lieu or Windows)
3. Find ways to get the product cheaper (car insurance 'location selection' e.g. saying you're in Edison, NJ when you're actually in NYC)
4. Altering the value proposition by increasing the value you get for the price you are willing to pay (e.g. cable descramblers while still paying the cable company for some of their servicies.)
5. Outright theft (shoplifting of the CD).

I would put music downloading in #4 while the record industry clearly puts in in #5. For years, the music industry (of which artists, producers, and distributers are all a part) have been socking fans. They have increased copyright protection limits (the original copyright law was for 20yrs which would make most Beatles songs copyright free now.) They offer singles cd's for $9 while the whole album costs $12-19 providing a horrible cost benefit ratio (from the consumer perspective). And, even Pearl Jam couldn't break out of the Ticketmaster fee structure despite a massive following.

Finally, music downloading via P2P balances the relationship. It allows a potential consumer to fully evaluate a product before they purchase it. In fact, its really no different from recording from the radio. My belief is that for many folks it has led to more prudent purchases (less buying of unworthy cd's and more buying of worthy ones.) That seems to me to be the real reason that CD sales have dropped by 20%. Before we had to buy a product we had no ability to evaluate and now we have choices.

I make a clear distinction between 4 and 5 b/c I don't play my computer music in my car or on my stereo. I buy CD's because I want to hear music in real audio quality. If I steal the CD, the store I steal it from never will receive the benefit of the purchase, but if I download a few songs (like a test drive of a car), then go out and buy the cd, the industry gets its dues. On the other hand, if I don't like the music, I delete it or don't listen to it. Either way, the music industry is no longer hosing me.

Ultimately, that's what the issue is about. Corporations getting frustrated that the consumers are finding a way to balance the relationship. SCO sues Linux. RIAA sues customers (and despite downloading, I guarantee EVERYONE they have sued has BOUGHT many cd's.)

I understand your appreciation of the 'legal' aspects of P2P. I value that as well, but I also value the balancing aspects of P2P that although not legal, still are right. It used to be illegal for blacks to vote. That didn't make it right.