your right about freenets general crappiness but what i was refering to is that it was roughly based on freenets "topology", in that how the nodes/peers are orginised in the grid. 1 or 2 other things may be slightly simaler but freenet was never suposed to be a filesharing network anyway. i dont wont to get in to a limewire vs nodezilla battle, because when it comes to speed and avalability of files the gnutella based p2p win hands down, hence why i love limewire.
i wouldnt say nodezilla has made some miraculus breakthrough but it has made a lot of major improvments to the way a grid p2p works. for instance the ability for data to be cashed as it is routed through the grid is certainly inovative. this is also combined with forward error control, which means that as files can still be downloaded even if the original sharer it gone, which is in effect persistant distributed storage. also since the files are cashed closer to you it means the the load on any individual node is reduced and download speeds are increassed, if someone later downloades the file. this effect incresses with the popularity or the file.
in relation sharing and searching the most reasent release has delt with this compeatly and the search result are quite good. the download speeds are reletivly good, 30 to 50KB/s on my 2Mb/s line.

Ultimately my point is, if all your looking for is speed then stick with limewire because when it comes to speed limewires the king among p2p. But if your looking for anonymity and security then there are very promising alternetives.

Thats an old feeble arguement. Im going by what the RIAA says. You get pinched if you are caught SHARING over 1000 files. Go look it up if you doubt me. You cant get arrested for downloading. Try doing some research. They are going after users WHO SHARE NOT DOWNLOAD. Why do you think people stopped sharing? They just steal much instead. If you share small amount of files like 100/200 you won't get traced.

I never said it was a strong argument, I was just making a point.


I will 100% guarantee you that downloading 1 song / movie / book which you do not own the rights to is a violation of copyright law. I can also guarantee you with 99% accuracy that if you downloaded said copyrighted material you won't be thrown in jail.


This is the same as the war on drugs. Buying, smoking, possessing marijuana is illegal in most cases, yet most people who just smoke casually never get in any trouble. This is because the people in charge go after the source of the problem, not the end user.


This is exactly what the RIAA/MPAA is doing. Why go after the guy who is downloading / sharing one song, when they can take out a guy who has 10,000.


It's the same reason police don't actively pursue casual pot smokers, they would much rather take out the guy with 1000 lbs. of weed, selling it to half of the state.

Why on earth would congress pass a law that stated Copyright laws are violated only after X amount of material is found in your possession?

They have laws that say its illegal to download ANY AMOUNT of copyrighted material, and harsher penalties if you are attempting to make money off of it.

As you are talking about the RIAA I take it you are referring to USA; do I take it then that breach of copyright is a criminal offence in USA?? In United Kingdom (and other countries which have adopted the Berne Convention) breach of copyright is a civil offence, a "tort". It is up to the Plaintiff to seek damages from the Respondent in the civil court. In practice music copyright owners would licence their right to a music publisher/record company and the action would normally be undertaken by the British Phonographics Industry, which seems to have adopted the role of music industry policeman, citing the terms of the 'Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988' (as amended) but it is still a civil action.