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

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER...

OK guys, let's get down to business and SHARE ideas and strategies to protect ourselves from these bast*rds trying to sue us for sharing music with each other!

*PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE* POST YOUR IDEAS AND STRATEGIES *HERE*ON HOW TO DOWNLOAD & SHARE MUSIC ANONYMOUSLY, OR AT LEAST MAKE IT HARD FOR THE R.I.A.A. TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY YOU AND PURSUE YOU.

Now is NOT the time to just stand by and "wait to see what happens"! We must protect ourselves, we must protect each other, and we must stop this madness.

Again, if you have any ideas of how to make yourself anonymous while downloading and sharing files, stop the R.I.A.A. from being able to know your IP Address, and so on, POST IT HERE FOR ALL TO SEE!

DO NOT THINK THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THE ANSWERS ALREADY, BECAUSE THEY DON'T! EVEN "COMMON SENSE" TACTICS ON HOW TO HIDE YOUR IP ADDRESS FROM THE R.I.A.A. SHOULD BE POSTED HERE - LET US HELP EACH OTHER OUT HERE, LET US NOT ADOPT THE ATTITUDE OF "WHATEVER..I'M SAFE"...BECAUSE NO ONE IS SAFE ANYMORE!

Do we really want to go back to the dark days of non-internet music sharing? Are we gonna let these rich bast*rds win?

I THINK NOT! SHARE YOUR TACTICS AND LETS US STAND TOGETHER AGAINST THE R.I.A.A. TYRANNY!
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: THIS MESSAGE BOARD POST THREAD IS NOT MEANT NOR INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. IT'S SOLE PURPOSE IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY. :D

Some Ideas
 

Don't share infringing content!

Problem solved.

Hmmm...
 

Gee Lee..why didn't I think of that?

Your absolutely right..I need to stop sharing all my music files (since they all make me a target for the R.I.A.A.), and then, everyone else needs to do the same thing...and then...hey..what happened to all the Peer to Peer networks?

I'm living in Germany, our ISPs are not allowed to hand out names and addresses to the RIAA or the German equivalent.

There have not been any lawsuits against p2p-users for sharing music yet. If they finally come to Germany, I will start using my ISPs http proxy to upload files, so they cannot track my IP.

Re: Hmmm...
 

Why, they'd be a valuable method of storing and distributing publically available files, able to ensure wide availability and resilience while placing minimal burden on hosts.

I'm sure there's a very good case to be made against price-fixing in the U.S. entertainment industry, but theft isn't endearing anyone to its cause. Stealing Porsches isn't acceptable just because they are overpriced.

Alrighty then...
 

If someone chooses to share their private music files with me, then the key word is SHARE...I didn't break into their computer and steal anything...they of their own right and will have chosen to share their files -now where's the theft in that? The fact that this is happening on a large scale is what the problem is, but the fact that it is happening on such a large scale DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE *SHARING* WITH EACH OTHER, AND NOT STEALING ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. I have the right to share what is mine with whomever I want.

This whole thing reminds me of when the music industry used to say the same thing about people copying music on their tape recorders, and later on their CD's and sharing it with others.

Ok enough...let's share ideas on how to stop these nuts from trying to prosecute us for *sharing* our own private files, and not go back and forth on the bogus legal claims made by the R.I.A.A. This thread is not for supporters of these nuts, sorry!

Re: Hmmm...
 

They will continue to exist and be used for other purposes.

Why that won't work
 

I've had this discussion many times and although this is not specific to the LimeWire community but applies to P2P in general i think it's worth a look.

It's a FAQ on why anonymous P2P won't work.

http://forums.overnet.com/phpBBovr/v...ic.php?t=48038

Re: Re: Hmmm...
 

Thank you for your comments.

Re: Alrighty then...
 

We've discussed this whole issue at length please see comments.

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...=Legal+Aspects

Thank you...
 

Lee,

You are a Gentleman and a Scholar. Thank you for your info and courteous replies.

Best Regards,
Nightbird

From a legal perspective, could reasonable doubt be raised from arguing that your IP was spoofed? Also, considering the number of people filesharing, would a pro-filesharing jury not be out of the question if jurors are selected based on a filesharer demographic?

Reasonable Doubt?
 

Although arguing that your IP was spoofed appears to be a compelling argument, here's some reasons why that wouldn't work.

Are you familiar with the act of perjury? Any person with the least amount of technical knowledge would know that spoofed ip addresses are only good for when you do not expect a reply to to data sent over the network. So, what that means in English is this, if you have a Web server that is excepting inbound connections and I am able to connect and began transferring data from your Web server then arguing that your IP was spoofed (someone else on the network was impersonating your Web server) would not make any sense.

I mean think of it this way, let's say that your phone number was (111) 111.1111
and my phone number was (222) 222.2222 and you want to impersonate me but you can't literally have my phone number (the phone switches know where the numbers physically terminate) in technical terms (the routers know where the IPs are) the most you can do is try to fool my caller ID system by forging my phone number (222)222.2222 when you make an outbound call. Now what happens if anybody tries to call you back? that's right, you guessed it they would call (222) 222.2222 which happens to be a real number that belongs to someone else.

So to the explain how this relates to arguing that your IP was spoofed.
Let's say that you were investigated and they found out that at IP address 172.16.0.1 on a particular date and that the particular time you were hosting infringing content.

Let's say that the aforementioned Ip address is yours, verified by the ISP who is the Administrative body for that IP address space (this is how you ended up in court in the first place.)

Your defense to these charges is someone must have forged my IP, which means that there was someone impersonating you on the network. Now, if this were true then what would have happened when they went to connect and investigate you based on Ip the address they would connect to your machine which has the right IP address. If you didn't have the files you would not be in court right now.

For the uninitiated, let me explain how this works so that you can tell all your friends. The companies that investigate the copyright infringement use a variety of means to verify who sharing what the simplest means of doing this is by connecting and downloading the portion of the content.

They send searches into the P2P network looking for queryhits on infringing content. They have databases with the hash values and file sizes of legit content this cuts down on the number of users sharing a text file as infringing content to try to trip up the investigators. after they received hit on the infringing file they make several attempts to connect to the host that is hosting the content to verify that it can be downloaded from that location. They use several IP addresses to do this.
They log the date, the time, the IP address and infringing content. Then they send a letter to your ISP. Your ISP forwards that letter to you for action.

Now, this wouldn't go any further if you just simply deleted the content responded both to the ISP complaint and the MPAA or RIAA complaint indicating compliance.


if you haven't noticed, the reason these companies have been able to win most of the law suits they've brought against companies and individuals is because they have valid legal arguments that hold up in court.

The one argument that they had that was a long shot and was rightfully struck down in court is that P2P technology in general contributes to piracy and is therefore subject to legal action.

when the truth is: people contribute to piracy and they use technology to do it but the people not the technology should be subject to legal action.

I'm glad this was settled in court.

LEE GET A NEW WEBSITE!
 

Lee, your WEBSITE SUX!

=D

Re: LEE GET A NEW WEBSITE!
 

If you want to design it I'll give you the job. Until then thanks for offering your expert opinion.

Legal help Subpoena Defense Alliance

I just got some kind of "urgent" message from a company called "Evidence Eliminator".. at first it terrified me, then I started wondering if it was just a marketing ploy to sell their file-removal software.. It gave my IP number, my ISP and said I was under investigation by my ISP!! At first I panicked thinking they found some MP3's or know that I log onto this program... It goes on to tell of the U.S. Government installing "black boxes" at ISPs to track people's internet surfing, downloading, etc... Has anyone here ever heard of this???

Have any of you gotten these pop-ups (it took over my whole screen!)? Is it just a marketing ploy because of the recent RIAA investigations??? I was thinking I might have to change my ISP..

Has anyone heard of these? If anybody knows anything about this, pleeease tell me.. thanks

Laura

"Evidence Eliminator" is a scam - one thats's been around for a few years now. They like to use popups, banner adverts mocked up to look like warning dialogues and spam email to incite fear in new or naive Internet users - fear enough to give them money for software that won't offer your computer one iota of protection, simply damp down the fear they themself incited.

The law in many countries considers this to be 'illegal commercial duress'. In one particularly chucklesome legal system, it was even deemed it to be 'blackmail' for a while - sadly, nobody was jailed.

I'd guess they're targetting file-sharers now as people who are likely to be easy marks for their line of trickery. Don't be fooled. You're more likely to actually get $8million from M'Bugu Gatu, the son of a recently deceased african businessman than to benefit from paying any credence to EE's communications.

Has Limewire been asked to give up any address??

Has anyone been busted for file sharing music that uses Limewire yet?

Fost

Re:Lee
 

Hey Lee,

I checked out your website and yes it's rather dull.

If you ever want distinguished logo for your company let me know.

Im a Graphic Designer based out of Los Angeles.

Your concept is good but the whole thing needs some work. Unfortunatley I dont have the time at this moment to redo your whole site.

Good Luck

Impulse

Re: Re:Lee
 

That may be true and I am aware of this. I have some PR people looking into it for me. However, my primary purpose for the site is to let people know what I am doing. But thanks for the offer and I would be highly interested if your serious about following up on the offer to redesign of course you could take the credit for the design.

Thanks for your reply,

I responded to the person who posted this message and offered him the opportunity to redesign the site if he wanted to. I think most people probably understand now the site isn't intended to be a place for people to hang out it's just there to provide information about what we do. BTW I have a lot of new stuff online I'll be bringing up the servers this evening to access the content on Gnutella just do a search for [CBT, WMV, Full, EXE] or visit http://networking.leeware.com

Re:Lee's site
 

I think that Lee's site is very useful. There is no question of that.

I also think that most porn sites are not done well. They are to busy and very irritating to the eye.

I just wondered if there is still a chance to get in trouble with the RIAA if I have taken all those files off my computer, and have uninstalled and gotten rid of LimeWire. I just did that today, so I didn't know if there was a way of them tracking all the stuff I had downloaded in the past.

thanks

I just wondered if there is still a chance to get in trouble with the RIAA if I have taken all those files off my computer, and have uninstalled and gotten rid of LimeWire. I just did that today, so I didn't know if there was a way of them tracking all the stuff I had downloaded in the past.

thanks

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peerless
[B]you know..this has been rumbling in the back of my mind for awhile now...and I have this really nutty idea about this all...

let's say you get caught, are found guilty, and then refuse to pay the fine...what happens then??? go to jail??? mwahahahahha...let's say everyone refuses to pay the fine...I really don't think there are enough prisons to hold all the ppl, let alone pay the cost to keep them prisoner...ahahahahahahhaha..

I imagine that the first thing they'd do is try to get the money through your employer via your wages. I suspect they'd also jack around your credit rating until you paid. We really don't do debtors jail anymore. Unless the sentence imposed by a judge gives you the option.

Big Trouble
 

They collect the information in advance so deleting the files at this point is like being caught on camera with your hand in the cookie jar and thinking that leaving the kitchen will keep those investigating the matter from knowing it was you.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

However, There is a point in which they validate the content being served by a particular host unfortunately this is all done with in a very small windows of time so it may only be a matter of time before you hear something. I only suggest that if you have stopped sharing copyrighted information, consider continuing to support p2p by hosting non-infringing content. Trust me all of your legal issue regarding p2p use will magically disappear.

http://www.leeware.com

Re: Re: LEE GET A NEW WEBSITE!
 

My comments where directed at impluse :-)

what to share
 

it seems that the content that catches most attention are mainstream audio and video content. the less top-ten-megastar a file is, the less likely the weasels at cogent, baytsp, etc. are going to search for it. in the long run this is going to help less well-known artists find an audience, because sharing their stuff is less risky.

of course, the safest way is to share content that is legal, which surprisingly is not just boring educationals and linux ISOs.

there's a ton of live performance recordings of popular artists over at furthur that can be legally shared. i donwloaded some content from there and am now sharing it both on furthur and limewire, these files are increasingly popular.

(www.furthurnet.com)

and then there's the artist promotion initiatives from bearshare and more recently limewire.

there's plenty of opportunity to share cool legal content, if you do some research.

and if youre really paranoid, try www.freenetproject.org.

If you enable your firewall after you're done using limewire, those popups should disappear....

You have to disable the firewall whenever you use Limewire next.

Would You Support Non-Infringing use of P2P?
 

Would You Support Non-Infringing use of P2P?


Although I must reluctantly agree with those in the industry on the fact that peer to peer technology is primarily used by music, movie and software pirates. I must however, disagree with them on the fact that

a) "They" cannot speak for what others may want to use peer to peer technology for.

b) With the Internet being as big as it is and growing everyday it's very difficult to reach people without paying a pay-per-search search engine to list your offerings for consumption by the masses

c) We have distributed over 3.7 million non-infringing files on various file sharing
networks. So there is some interest in non-infringing content. We push out about nine gigabytes of data per day to the Gnutella community. This is all non-infringing content.

d) Novice users have a difficult time finding free content on the network. How many times have you seen sites that promote the idea of "free downloads" for software that is really shareware which means limited use.

Personally, I've argued that the record, movie and software companies have a legal right to do what they are doing and if you're sharing content which infringes on someone's copyright you should not expect a peer to peer service to provide protection for you. (see:http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...gal+Aspects+of) In addition to this being virtually impossible, if anyone was able to achieve it that is a) A user base that reaches critical mass and b) some way of providing security and privacy to the user's that service would be in danger of being shut down due to the fact they (the creators of such system ) would probably have the ability to monitor or control what happens within the network.

The reason the public at large does not use peer to peer technology probably has more to due with the fact that basically the technology has receive such negative coverage in the media. Another thing that leads to this gross misconception is the idea that the concept of file sharing in and of itself is illegal, which has been ruled in a court of law to not be true. I personally got involved with the filesharing community when this it was the prevailing strategy.

The record companies have finally come to their senses and started doing what they should have done in the first place and that is, go after the individual users who are infringing on the copyrights of others. this will have two primary effects on the file sharing community at large and they are:

a) a serious reduction in the amount of infringing content- this will unfortunately lead to a decrease in user population because those who use the service to pirate software and music will not be able to do so any more.

b) cleared the way for content publishers to use the networks as they were intended to be used and that is as a distribution platform for non-infringing media.

So the question is to the average P2P user is would you support non-infringing use?

If so, how? If not why?

I'm interested in all opinions.

I fully support the use of P2P to share 'non-infringing content' as you put it.

The web's has reduced the cost of publishing textual information to the point where it is within the grasp of the majority of people in the developed world. That's a fantastic achievement if you think about it - you or I or Auntie Gertrude can now share our views on growing roses or the war in Iraq without undue cost or govenmental control.

Of course, the system has problems. Although the cost of publication on the web is minimal, that cost must still be bourne by the publisher and is a function of the number of readers the published material has. I've heard it called the slashdot effect, when an innocuous small web site or private publication suddenly grows in fame, to the point where the resources of the publisher are exhausted and the site becomes unavailable.

More bandwidth-intensive media excerbate the problem - a new band may publish a few mp3s of their music cheaply using a standard ISP account, but if they become popular they may find themself paying for thousands or tens of thousands of downloads rather than the expected dozen - or of course having to withdraw their free downloads.

P2P technology goes a long way towards solving this problem. The availability of content grows with it's popularity as (hopefully) those downloading it think it worthy of sharing at their own cost. With the cost of publishing spread over a much larger group of people, popular (and bandwidth-intensive) content may once again be published by you or I or Auntie Gertrude. Only now old Gertie can share her photos of her prize winning roses without annying her ISP, and the evidence of atrocities in war-zones can be judged from video source rather than text-summaries in the media.

I imagine in a few years finding magnet link (or whatever they evolve into) on a web-site giving access to a popular audio, video or binary file will be commonplace.

Long way to go yet, but P2P has a valuable role to play. The best we can do to encourage it now is to provide legitimate content.

Bad form replying to oneself, but I did a little googling for sites which have content that people obviously want that have sadly had to restrict download availability. It's a big list - there's an enormous demand for methods of sharing the cost of distributing content.

RIAA Computers
 

I certainly don't condone lawlessness in any form, but I can't help wondering what has kept hackers away from the RIAA. They certainly must be making some enemies. And there is no shortage of people who could pull it off. Or maybe I'm wrong--maybe it's impossible to do. Maybe no one out there has the skill. Anyway, I'm sure glad that such an illegal act hasn't been perpetrated. Isn't everyone else?

RIAA Site Hacks
 

Where have you been all of this time the RIAA site have been hacked and DoS offline so many times but what's the point of conducting such attacks against an organization?

Lee, I don't think you read my post. I wasn't calling for it -- just wondering about the absence of it. Haven't heard about any effective, i.e. long-lasting disruptions. As to what would be the point I can't say. Some would say what's the point of removing a cancerous growth. Me, I'm neutral.

RIAA Hacks
 

Good Point -- I can only assume, perhaps the holes used to exploit the site in the past have been closed or they found a way to mitigate the risks or effect of such hotile actions.

Here's an idea that would please everybody...maybe.
 

OK. First of all we need to know 3 things:

1. File sharing should always be free for the user.
2. Most file sharing programs are supported by the use of ads or banners, and offering a 'plus' version.
3. File sharing is illegal right now due to copyright infringement. I'm not saying it should or should not be illegal, I'm just stating the facts-- right now, file sharing is illegal.

Now, having said that, we can proceed with describing a solution that may make everybody happy, or at least the great majority of people anyway.

What we can do is to make the file sharing companies (Kazaa, LimeWire, Morpheus, etc.) pay a yearly renewable tax or user fee to be able to provide their file sharing program. They probably make enough money from the ads, banners, and plus versions to be able to pay the tax, maintain the program, and make some profit besides. This money could then be distributed to the record companies and/or recording artists. Sort of like buying a license to use the songs, if you will. We can't make every company pay for each individual song but we can make them pay a lump sum each year to buy a 'file sharing license' or something like that.

This way the record companies get paid for the use of their songs, the consumer gets the songs free, the only unhappy people would be the file sharing companies, but as long as they still make a profit I don't see that they would complain too much.[FONT=century gothic][COLOR=deeppink][SIZE=3]

Re: Here's an idea that would please everybody...maybe.
 

#1 File Sharing IS free for the User
#2 Ad supported software is only offered by SOME P2P developers there are ones that don't require ADs
#3 File sharing IS NOT ILLEGAL sharing infringing content is ILLEGAL

see http://www.leeware.com

1. I know file sharing is free NOW, but what I am saying is that it should ALWAYS be free; that there should always be a free version in the future . If you want to charge for the plus version it should be ok as long as you still keep that free version available. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

2. Ok, maybe not every company is supported by ads, but they all make money somehow , right? They wouldn't be running if they were losing money! And I did say 'most' and not 'all'. So the idea would still be valid.

3. You got me there; I didn't state that right. Thank you for correcting me. :o

(I noticed that you didn't say anything about my idea , just my so-called facts. I don't know what to think about that.)

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.