Community Newsletter: Q&A: Is peer-to-peer software such as LimeWire legal and safe to use?
- 3/23/07 12:14 PM
flawed logic
by joyce36_ca - 3/19/07 10:32 AM In reply to: RIAA & The Artists by saskiacentralSorry, you're using the same invalid "2 wrongs make a right" rationale employed by every uneducated pirate.
No one has a right to acquire copyrighted work without the proper permissions.
Period.
Now, I agree that the RIAA and MPAA are misguidedly engaged in a foolish, futile war-- but that doesn't make ripping off the artists right... regardless of who's doing it.
It's backups!
by Mr Freeze - 3/16/07 5:17 PM In reply to: the rights of every one by balongaProbably a funny excuse... but I needed backups in the past and p2p has been great to me. I buy music from Napster (better then iTunes) and barrow PC games from friends (single player only). What more do you want in life?
Then of course, everyone that post in this forum probably stole something off the internet. And I just downloaded the new album from Corinne Bailey Rae.. great album! But she's HOT, so I'll give her my money anyway 
Bottom line, p2p = breaking the law in so many ways, but if you need backups, it's the only (reliable) option you have. SO STOP STEALING! And backup all your software, muisc, movies etc.
I'm a musician
by mself61 - 3/16/07 6:36 PM In reply to: It's backups! by Mr FreezeMaybe not pro but I play and record my own stuff, I give it away for free because the quality of the recording isnt as high as it could be. My favorite band for years being Black Sabbath and my second Pink Floyd, I have bought Sabbaths albums at least 3 times each. I have favorite bands that I will buy because I like there music, I currently buy 1 CD a month from www.yourmusic.com at 6.99 + tax (7.57) with free shipping A VERY FAIR PRICE. unfotunatly they dont carry some all my favorite bands but they do have a good selection. anyway I also download music to study, everything from classical to metal thats would knock the RIAA off the planet. I also like to here some oldies that bring back memories of long ago but I would NEVER go out and buy the song for 12, 14 bucks they charge for a cd. I play these over my mp3 player at work when I feel the others have had enough of Sabbath or Floyd, its like commercial free music for them and in some cases "advertising their music for free" which the RIAA would probably say humbug to that. I've bought CD's just because they had only 1 or 2 good songs on them. why pay for the other stuff I'll never listen to ?. I tell you what it is.. these people that work for the RIAA are just out right greedy people just like those who download songs and sell them to others for profit. so I feel they are no better than them. in 50 years it won't matter anymore with the Global Warming that no one will do anything about.
Musicians in my opinion do not get "their cut" of what they should be getting. I read most of the above entries and agree that the RIAA needs to butt out and disappear Into The Void.
RIAA
by Kieran Reynolds - 3/16/07 11:07 PM In reply to: I'm a musician by mself61Well Well SAID,
Many Thanks
Kieran GANNON
G A N N O N
I'm a pro musician
by IronManCurtis - 3/18/07 8:40 PM In reply to: I'm a musician by mself61I'm a professional musician and recording artist with a major jazz label. My guys are "good guys". Jazz is a niche market. We'll never be millionaires. We manage to scrape by. I don't think P2P hurts us. I make a lot of my music freely available on my website and elsewhere. I have a PayPal "tip jar" where appreciative fans can leave an amount of their choosing. I don't make much from this, but every little bit helps.
There's a lot of talk about the Big Five record companies cheating artists, and P2P promoting independent artists. Yes, artists get cheated - not all, but certainly a lot. How does our stealing their music correct this? When we steal their music, do we send money to the artist? Or are we just using this as an excuse for also stealing from the artists, making ouselves no better than the record companies we so bitterly decry?
P2P *could* be a great self promotion tool *if* people uploaded and searched for indie music. Sadly, this is far from the case. Do a search for something not artist or song specific (like "love" - incidentally one of my favorite bands - I have to use "Arthur Lee & Love") and most of the hits are the most popular major-label artists.
MP3.com used to be a great site for independent artists, and actually paid us darn good money for good music and effective promotion thereof, based on plays and sales. Then they were sued by a certain "Big Five" record company over a stupid technicality. When users uploaded their own music for personal online playback (perfectly legal), rather than store zillions of individual and otherwise identical files on millions of hard drives, they stored just one copy which was shared by those who'd already proven ownership thereof. The fat cats won a ridiculously exhorbitant amount, used this to shut MP3.com down, got rid of all the indie artists, cut out the payments, then resurrected it to promote their own product. Anything to hamper independents and free enterprise and protect and promulgate their de facto monopolies.
The problem with the major labels is bloat. Everyone expects to make the big bucks. CEO's and other corporate officers are WAYYY overpaid. Unless they produce money for the corporation, they can't justify their huge salaries and company perqs. To create this money, they often cheat artists through creative bookkeeping, and sometimes outright fraud. They also try to eliminate competition through immoral (sometimes illegal) business practices and otherwise interfering with free trade. Their business model is huge and vastly out of date, and is wasteful for anything other than "huge". A million seller would have an efficient musician like myself in hog heaven. But a major label has so many greedy fingers in the pie that a million seller doesn't produce enough sales to satisfy all the leeches.
It's not just the labels. Distributors have their little games, too. If they owe a label money, instead of paying they may return unsold product for credit.
RIAA? They're amazing. Why, when they speak, you can hardly see th3e Big Five's lips move.
I have no sympathy for the major labels. No tears will be shed here when their collective heads are ultimately served up on the platter they've prepared for independent musicians and smaller record companies. Let them reap what they sow.
We can do better than steal their music (where they still profit by sueing us for ridiculous amounts, then offer to settle for an amount too small to contest in court but large enough to be profitable for them.) Boycott their music. They can't sue us for ignoring their products. They NEED our money - LOTS of our money - to survive. Support venues that feature live music. Support independent artists, buy their music, help promote their music by (legally) sharing it with others, PayPal them a few bucks for their music they have made available for download (think of it like a tip), come see them play live. For every successful major label artist, there are thousands just as good - or better - that can't get a major record deal, or just don't like dealing with the majors. If we all boycott the majors, things will change. They can't force us to buy, and they can't survive without our money.
If you absolutely can't live without someone's music, by all means buy their records. For this to work, we only need to make a big dent in their business. If we dent them legally, there's nothing they can do. Then maybe they'll start playing more fair with the hard working artists whose sweat they live off.
-Mike
Nice
by joyce36_ca - 3/19/07 10:39 AM In reply to: I'm a pro musician by IronManCurtisOne of the best posts in this thread. So nice to hear from someone who has the proper perspective and experience to offer an informed opinion.
Using Peer2Peer, is it asking for trouble?
by Daylight51 - 1/23/08 7:22 AM In reply to: I'm a pro musician by IronManCurtisHi Mike,
I found your mail very interesting. I did have Limewire, Orpheus, Ares at different stages, but I never felt happy with the safety/legal side of these programs so I dont use then anymore now. I notice that Limwire is becoming ever more popular on the net as are other P2P programs, but I am really concerned about their openness to virus, hacking etc. I have fairly basic anti virus, spyware installed on my comp and I wonder how many people are without strong protection against the dangers of P2P programs.
I wish I could give some advice to people here but I am not tech expert enough to do so. Therefore Id like if some people with tech knowledge on P2P programs could comment here and advise on the real danger of P2P, if any?
Best Regards.
Donie.
my music my copyrite
by ppollack - 3/16/07 8:18 PM In reply to: the rights of every one by balongaI have software that seems to send copyrited music to my freinds. They try to open it and have problems with that. But it is MY copyrite. I don't think that They (my freinds) should have to have problems with opening MY copyrited Items but they do. I send them via IM and even My mother has problems downloading this music, so as far as copyrites go DON"T WORRY BE HAPPY
The NEEDS of the FEW
by com2pc - 3/16/07 11:48 PM In reply to: the rights of every one by balongaUnfortunately The NEEDS of the many.. Do N O T outweigh the GREED of the FEW..( RIAA and MPAA!!) These money grubbing self serving entities should be SUED out of existence. Im just waiting for some smart young lawyer to come along and figure this all OUT. Figure what Out You ask?? That where digital files are concerned and where digital files exist on millions of INDIVIDUAL Personal Computers all Over the INTERNET.Those files can No Longer be considered the copyrighted material ( intelectually or otherwise) of any ONE person or Group. But are OWNED by all the owners of those said INDIVIDUAL Personal P C'S ! How can you copyright or claim copyright on a digital file that exists on Millions of individuals personal Computers. The same said files also floating around in CYBERSPACE, and having already been shared by countless people?
FOR YEARS!! I expect the next thing to be regulated will be SALVATION ! ! ( the saving of SOULS!!) im telling You guys it will no longer be a free gift. You are going to have to pay!!
Fair or not
by racastro - 3/19/07 2:05 AM In reply to: the rights of every one by balongaUnfortunately, fair or not, they have the courts (and law) on their side. As mentioned, if you don't have a lot of money to spend in lawyers, and eventual payments, it's cheaper to buy than go to court.
Regards.
This is so wrong...
by asciibinary - 3/16/07 6:16 PM In reply to: Limewire... by Wolfie2k5First *Potential winning answer*
"ALL feature films are likewise protected by copyrights and downloading them IS likewise a big no-no."
Not ALL, not true.
"The RIAA and MPAA have software that can trace songs back to their point of origin by way of the IP (Internet Protocol) address of the person allegedly sharing the content."
Not so. As the author states: "Limewire is a P2P (Peer to Peer) sharing application". That means that two computers connect to eachother. This is done through a central server or a network. This has nothing to do with the RIAA and MPAA.
So:
1. RIAA and MPAA are gaining entry to the network (violation of law?)
2. Setting up *honeypot files* (wrong definition, I know): this is called entrapment, by law.
3. In any case, it's a huge violation of privacy/violation of law - no matter what system they will use to find which files may be transferring between computers.
The above explanations are very naive, but simplified. I would like to not get into a discussion, but simply point out how the author of the post - while right on some points - completely misinterpreted the rest of what's going on with P2P filesharing nowadays.
Regards,
Vladimir
If this were so wrong...
by racastro - 3/19/07 2:16 AM In reply to: This is so wrong... by asciibinaryHow many have went in court against RIAA and MPAA and have won? If this were the case, why are these Win-cases almost unknown?
I don't like this kind of fear-politics. But the reasons are really far away from naive.
I don't want to go out of topic, but, as far as I got it, the Digital Act has opened the possibility to RIAA and MPAA to follow those strange (formerly illegal?) procedures to catch "digital misdoers".
If this was so clearly unconstitutional, why is it still valid?
Best regards.
Peer 2 Peer file sharing.
by Mystic43 - 3/16/07 6:40 PM In reply to: Limewire... by Wolfie2k5That was so well stated and put. Your right on every single detail you mentioned. Awesome advise.
freedom of choice
by ejrjr - 3/16/07 8:35 PM In reply to: Limewire... by Wolfie2k5Limewire serves a purpose and simultaneously defeats such. The problem lies not with copyright but with long-practiced cartel business practices. You or I can purchase an audio CD or DVD, burn a copy and send to friend or sell such on ebay or amazon. Yet, we cannot share or sell audio tracks or movies even if we purchased such.
You may recall that many years ago the RIAA and the major music companies tried to prevent the release of dual-deck audiocassette player/recorders. Then the MPAA attempted to stop sales of dual-deck vhs machines.
While the music and film companies have legitimate right to protect copyrighted material, the copyright laws have been seriously corrupted by such companies especially due to former hippie-pothead sonny bono, the born-again republican congressman who sponsored legislation written by the film companies which gave them retroactive rights to material in public domain.
As always the battle is about money and who controls it. Unfortunately, it is seldom the artists. Just remember what Paul McCartney has said about EMI/Capital records that pays a royalty of $0.01 per album sold to the Beatles "... I will die fighting them and hopefully my children will continue to fight them."
So while the RIAA (music industry strong arm association) and MPAA (movie studio strong arm association) pretend to be battling pirates, in reality they are just seeking the power to continue fleecing artists.
That does not mean Lime Wire is wonderful. There is much stolen material being flogged and of course some tainted files. And, yes the RIAA is willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars prosecuting teenagers who share a few files.
Steve Jobs is in the forefront of the revolution and the record companies don't like him. Unfortunately, change will not occur until the dinosaurs are dead or mismanaged companies like EMI are sold or dismantled. It is amazing that incompetent buffoons are paid millions to pretend to lead EMI and millions more are paid to lawyers to protect assets. Prosecution seems to be their primary business plan rather than making music accessible and affordable.
Lime Wire is indicative of the huge audience for music that is not being addressed by the major music companies. You can read more on Apple's website, specifically the recent eighteen page commentary about the music biz by Steve Jobs.
Meanwhile, pray that EMI continues to flounder so it will eventually be dismembered and hopefully Paul McCartney can purchase distribution rights to the Beatles albums. Supporting EMI/Capital with purchases of their product is like giving money to the Mafia. The only difference is that the Mafia does not pretent to be a benovolent company and certainly has better leaders.
LIMEWIRE
by j7hoo - 3/16/07 11:27 PM In reply to: freedom of choice by ejrjrI have a problem with the leyway itelectual property has evoled and has imprisioned most people into paying big bucks for little product.
They say "buyer beware" I say " yo ho ho and a bottle of rum".
In the early days of computers I paid a couple of hundred bucks for a jazz product discounted from $500 something, to find out a couple months later they went out of business.
In my day once you paid for something, it was yours. Now with intellectual rights, you buy to use the product but never own it.
Then their product is like you hire a painter to paint your house, but never finishes! Yes you can say no, but they rule you forever once you buy. Their like drug dealers.
The mean point is Piracy. If Microsoft where to lower their prcies to be affordable, they would have less Piracy, and better customers.
But then who is calling whom a pirate?
The Pirates of Silicon Valley?
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
