Hey; well here's somthing to think about. What if your immediate family owns copyrighted programs/movies/music/games and you either don't know how or don't have the means to transfer such thingz to your computer. Would it be wrong to use a P2P program to get those programs/movies/music/games onto your computer? I think not; I do these sorts of thingz constantly; It saves me time and effort. Also; is it wrong to record a TV show onto your computer so you can view it as many times as you'd like. TV Shows such as Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis for example. Every time the show comes on; I save it onto my computer and burn it to a DVD and show it to my friends who havn't seen that episode. Now that the show is being sold in single Season sets; was it wrong for me to have already made my own sets through use of hardware I rightfully paid for? My question is; are the senarios I just made known legal, illegal, or neutral?

Sounds like a good idea. Although, how does it check for copyrighted material? Does it make a filelist of your computer then compare it to a database? Or even send it to the company that made it and then compared? Surely it wouldn't delete copyrighted material that the user actually made themselves? (with the advancements in technology and dvd burners et cetera being sold for that reason, even alone)

Network Admin really don't need software like this. It's just another thing to learn and apply. And why install something that can be done with a bit of common sense? Some admin might go with the "if i can't see it, it's not illegal" method, but that doesn't hold up well.

"Both the IFPI and MPAA say this tool could be used as a way to avoid possible legal action." does this mean if being sued for having copyrighted material of theirs, that they'd drop the charges if the user in question installed and ran the program on their PC? I didn't think so.

Pfft, why not just impliment something like this in a high profile scheme like iTunes and make it mandatory to install such a program? Given some time, TOS UA can be changed.

I would bet that most who are sued blame the kids. This is to illegitamize that defense. It will result in higher penalties!

This is laughable! Who would be crazy enough to run such a tool on their system if they are sharing music? I can see a university using this, but that's about it. The recording industry has it backward here. They are being penny foolish and pound wise in that they're spending more money going after teengs who share music than they were losing from album sales. They could just make their CDs more valuable with special content or do what the book publishing industry is doing. Publishers give several free books by an author online with the understanding that many people will want to read more and will pay for it. The RIAA is acting by reflex instead of with flexibility and knowledge of their changing market. Life law number 1... You either get it or you don't. Those who get it win. Those who don't fall behind and eventually leave the playing field.

I don't see why all you non-wealthy people can't understand how these things work. When you contribute garbage truckloads of money to the campaign funds of a strategic number of elected officials, then you too will be able to have the legislative and judicial systems biased in such a way as to make sure that you will attain even greater wealth. Until then, I suggest that you should go listen to your FM radio stations. At least that won't cost you anything...for now.

Now, how will this work with the CDs I'm forced to buy if I wish to hear the one or two good songs.

Will it remove the filler crap that they use to fill the rest of the CD with and refund me the money for the crappy filler. @ $0.95 minimum for a start I would suggest.

It's voluntary, good, then i opt out. Thanks anyway :)

"Finally!! I can't wait to get rid of my music collection!! I don't know if I can wait months for it though. Looks like I'll have to settle for formatting my music drive." :)

Just go back to your mansions, RIAA. Quit wasting your time and money. If P2P is hurting them so much financially, wouldn't they want to save as much money as they could, and quit throwing it away on things that won't stop determined P2P'ers?

Well I'm a Systems Admin. Our company policy is: Download ANYTHING on a P2P from the company network you get FIRED! simple. We search the network for file types. But, with a policy in place people follow it.

You have a car? therefore you MUST speed! Here is your monthly speeding ticket! So you went on a P2P network therefore you downloaded something copyrighted pay the MPAA/RIAA $5000

and speeding which can kill someone will fine you a hell of a lot less then using P2P these days, great priorities. -not you, just society in general

I say to make it a law-case for un-authorised hacking attempt on our computers

Oh man. I don't download music from p2p anymore, but it's the principle of the thing. Why is society heading down this dark path of corperate control?

As other's have said, all we get now is total garbage to listen to. Long gone are the days were a company would invest in artists for development. To me it's more of a fashion industry than a music industry.

Talk about stealing. Whoa. Hold on here. How many artists have been ripped of by the music industry? How many billions has it stolen from other people's work?

To even suggest this kind of thing is another nail in the coffin of freedom.

Hahahahahahahhaha!

What a huge waste of time and money.

LOL......total losers.

What about *legal* MP3s?

According to Aussie law, I'm allowed to make a single backup. I prefer to keep these on my hard drive.

EDIT: Also, shutting down *ALL* P2P will limit the users download of certain legal programs (Linux is a very good example of this.)

In Short: We don't want this Mr. Greedy RIAA dude.

I think one point everyone is missing is that one main use is for corporate organizations to scan their internal systems. In this sense, it could be a useful app, since I really don't see anyone downloading it and running it for home use.

So, since I'm afraid that someone might be using my PC to download *potentially* copyrighted works using P2P networks (*note* P2P Networks are not illegal, only the copyrighted works that are being transmitted over them are. Not all files found through P2P networks are copyrighted.) then I'm going to install an application made by a greedy corporation to automatically detect and delete copyrighted works and any P2P application? Sure, that makes as much sense as playing "Russian Roulette" with a fully-loaded gun. I've got a better idea: RIAA needs to stop pushing absolute crap out from the artists and they need to drop the prices for audio and allowed downloads that can be used more than just on your own PC that you downloaded to. If it was $.50 a song, then you would seem me buy more music. As of now, I have not bought more than 4 CD's in the past 2 years. I used to buy that many CD's in a month when I had more money (read: when gas was only $1/gallon).

If this "tool" is designed for parents to check whats on a PC and delete ilegal stuff then all well and good. But if this "tool" is used to do this without my knowledge, and damage any programs or content on my machine without warning or authorisation to do so then its not on.

I look with interest on how this "tool" will be used. As it could be used as part or installers with parameters to do a scripted check. I hope this "tool" is made without the option to be run with a scripted feature.

Well, kidz block that program (and site) in first place :-)

Ssshhh, people! "Piracy is bad, mmmkay."

"program that will remove or block file-sharing programs, as well as delete copyrighted work from a computer so it cannot be shared"

Whose computer will this happen on?
Woops. there goes the OS too......

Only concern i have, is it could be reversed engineered and made to attack and wipe everything.
What happens if the user has legal content on his system and it wipes it off without his knoweledge of the tool being on his system.
very murky waters

hhahhaahah, stolen OS- lovit.

Wow, I never knew spyware and viruses could exist in the same program. ROFL

I don't know who they think we are as the consumer.
They cry that we steal there music, and then market utter crap to the masses.
I'm into EDM, and the horrible surcomstances I'd be in if I had to buy...[noone can afford imports]

I have to say this news is a little upsetting. I strongly support the Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org/, the GNU, and other open source software and ideals. The whole RIAA has me more than just a little peeved at the whole situation. Yes, I can see where the RIAA is coming from..."I'm a greedy corporation who pushes new artists to make loads of cash for me, and for themselves. What's this? We are losing a tiny amount of sales from p2p filesharing? What! Lets sue them until they either submit and turn into a pay service, or get shut down. Lets sue all the parents of the kids who are downloading music illegaly. Yeah, lets make some software that totally wipes out any illegal music from a users computer, and prevents the downloading of music files! Lets also make all music cd's have copy protection so that paying customers can no longer copy music to thier computers! Now everyone has to pay for the music twice if they want to ever be able to have mp3's of the songs they love."

I mean, that is the whole mindset that the RIAA has, isn't it? All they and other companies are fronting is the 'Downloading music and movies is just as illegal as stealing a car or a poketbook from a lady on the street, it's just such a subversive (I don't think that's the word I am meaning to use, but you still get my meaning!) method of stealing that it doesn't even seem like you are committing a crime!'

Ok, I have a quandry out there for some of you.

It is NOT illegal to record music from the radio and share it with your friends. You are not SELLING the music, therefore it is not illegal. It was never illegal to copy music from cd's into mp3 form and put them onto a computer or mp3 player. HOWEVER, it is now illegal to transfer copyrighted music files. It is just like taking an mp3 from my computer, and walking a cd of that mp3 over to a friend's house and giving them a copy of it. That was never illegal before...yet because of the ease-of-use of p2p filesharing programs, the RIAA is making ALL p2p filesharing programs shut down. They are now making software that will search your computer for supposedly illegal music files and will delete them, and who knows how many other effects this software will have on a person's pc from that point on. Where will this end, and when are people going to start fighting back hard? The RIAA is going way too far on this one. Just because p2p software is easy to use, they are getting shut down. I'm sorry, but if I like an artist, I will GLADLY go buy thier cd's. I will support artists that I wish to support. Artists are NOT losing tremendous amounts of money here people.

Every single time the RIAA gains a victory over us, it gives them that much more power over any future filesharing capabilities that we have. Do we really want to have someone monitoring everything we download, tisk-tisk'ing us and slapping us with lawsuits every time we download something that irks them? I don't want someone having that kind of control over my life or my internet connection. The internet is used for the complete transfer of ALL types of data over the internet. The RIAA is making it to where we have limits as to what we can download. The RIAA can NOT be allowed to block the downloading of this software...because it will NOT stop with just music and movies. Instant messaging programs will soon no longer allow the transfer of any music or video files. They will probably not allow zip or executable files because those can be made to contain music and videos. Soon all types of software will have to have licensing. All program files, documents, images, and other software types will end up having the addition of a snippet of code containing a license, whether it is an open source license, or a license that requires payment to view the file, etc.

The ultimate point here is that THIS is the starting point. This is the fight that must, for once, be won by the people...NOT the corporations who believe they are in control of everything we do. Common people...get off your butts and be an Activist for once! Fight for something once in your life! This kind of thing has happened all the time in the past, especially the last 100 years. Now we have gotten so complacent that we are willing to just except the 'inevitable'. Heck, look at gas prices for example. The prices out here where I live range from $3 to $4 per gallon of gas, depending on the gas grade, and the station selling it. It was only a year or two ago that gas was going over a dollar and we were getting sick of it then. Now we just kind of accept that gas is getting expensive. You never see anything on the news about people protesting the gas prices. Just like you hardly ever see anything on the news about people protesting the RIAA, or protesting people getting sued for transferring music and video. For crying out loud, the RIAA started attacking students using Internet2 to transfer files. Who the heck is the RIAA to even have the right to view what college and university students are doing on an experimental network? Where will it end?

"Ok, I have a quandry out there for some of you.

It is NOT illegal to record music from the radio and share it with your friends. You are not SELLING the music, therefore it is not illegal. It was never illegal to copy music from cd's into mp3 form and put them onto a computer or mp3 player. HOWEVER, it is now illegal to transfer copyrighted music files. It is just like taking an mp3 from my computer, and walking a cd of that mp3 over to a friend's house and giving them a copy of it. That was never illegal before..."

Correction: All of those examples have always been illegal. But up until P2P networks, it was never a big enough problem for them to care about.

"Artists are NOT losing tremendous amounts of money here people"

Again wrong. And you can argue all day long about whether or not they *deserve* all the money, but the fact is, they are losing money that they have every legal right to.

"Who the heck is the RIAA to even have the right to view what college and university students are doing on an experimental network?"

Everything you do on the Internet is wide-open for anyone to find. Your ISP knows where you've been. Everything is logged five million times over. Anonymity on the Internet? Yeah right...

Lol, you love proving other people's facts wrong, don't you! (no anger intended here, just sayin'!)

Whether I have the total facts correct isn't as big an issue as the idea behind what I was trying to get across. I'm hoping some people will understand that not everyone is happy with the way this is being handled. I don't like all the changes being made to control the net. And you know, it isn't just a matter of voting in who you want to be representing you in office. It's when those people totally screw up by giving in to corporate pressuring when we need to stand up for rights. We have a right to free information...we don't have a right to steal of course, but creating software that can browse a computer to remove all illegal software? That is just asking for re-engineering of the software for malicious purposes. And you just know that some company somewhere will bundle that software to thier own software. God forbid microsoft add software to Vista that prevents the storing of non-licensed music and videos, and forcefully removes said multimedia.

But I hope you catch my drift. I don't like having my freedoms trampled on, and I will fight back. Sorry, it's just me.

I totally agree with you. This move by the RIAA was retarded IMO, as I said in another comment below =)

"Lol, you love proving other people's facts wrong, don't you! (no anger intended here, just sayin'!)"

Oops. Missed this part before. No, I don't necessarily love proving other people wrong. My intent is not to make other people look stupid (although I know sometimes I come across that way - sorry).

The thing is, when I see mis-information on a post, I feel I need to correct it so that other readers are not mislead. That's part of how a public forum is supposed to work anyway.

cool, no prob. I see what your saying. But man, this forum is turning into another "UN taking control of the internet" kind of forum. That one forum got up to, what...over 400 posts? This one is heading that way I think.

I'll remember that the next time I'm browsing the music section of a store and see a CD w/a $30 price tag that's full of lyrics that not even the NSA could decipher

Remember what?

And where are you buying $30 CDs? It's been a long time since I've seen anything over $15.

And now for the rest of the story...

Personally I think it's a good start. I don't believe in downloading or stealing someone else's work. If a person(s) or group spent many hours working on a project, song, program, photos or what ever else one can download I believe they should be paid accordingly. I know it seems like sharing is what most were taught growing up, but one can't lend someone else's toys.

We have 3 kids, now in their twenties, and I have always discouraged them from using any file sharing program. Not just because it's wrong but because it's also a great way to get bugs on your computer. Fact is they all grew up with the internet and made it into their twenties with-out any ill effect from not using Kazaa, Imesh, WinMX... and all the other p2p programs.

:o) There... my two cents worth

Well, I have to throw my 2cents right back at ya.

First of all, discouraging use of p2p apps to your children because they "Might" download a virus/malaware is just plain foolish. How about teaching them how to spot a "suspicious file" before running it. Not to mention that any file you download from most p2p apps do not execute apon completion of the download. Wanna be paraniod? Run a virus check before you run the file, pretty simple stuff. There are Indie artists that count on p2p apps spreading their work.

2nd of all, I think music artists and actors alike get paid way too much. How the hell society let this happen is beyond me. If they are worried that they won't make ends meet singing or acting, I say get a job like the rest of us.

But hey, you keep paying for you music and movies, and pirates like me will keep downloading them for free. As for the program, I don't expect it to get much use.

@ point number 2:

It is not up to the individual to decide how much someone *should* be making, and consequently neither is it their decision whether or not the artist *should* be paid for their work.

Those decisions are up to the governing forces. We can change them by our votes and by writing politicians about our concerns.

Stealing the music as part of some "ethical crusade" will solve nothing and only antagonize the situation.

It's not up to the Individual on how much who should get paid? If I should be that individual who created some sort of usable program and I wanted say $23.99 for it... than that's what I should be paid. But if a so called pirate gets hold of some software and decides it should be his deed to share it out... well that's just wrong and yes someone should get in trouble for it, it's plain simple theft.

Call it a crusade if you so choose, but some folks in this world still realize what's right and what's wrong, if some can't than maybe they should be set straight. And having someone B!tc4 at me about their problem of not knowing right from wrong well... bully for you. Still doesn't make it right because some yahoo on the net says it's ok because he does it. Theft is Theft, just like white is white and black is black... no matter who tells you differently. :o)

so.... you agree with me? lol

I am personally against illegal file-sharing. I hope that came across well in my comment. I do believe however, that if enough people feel strongly about changing legislation, then it should happen. That's the beauty of our pseudo-democracy (it's really a republic).

**EDIT**
Oh wait... I see what you're saying with your first statement. I meant that it's not up to the individual *consumer* to decide what an artist/author should make. Sorry. I should have clarified.

What about the hero out throwing a ball for 12 million? or the golfer that hits a ball into a hole and gets 30 million? But yet we have doctors who are paid 1 or 2 hundred thousand a year and the kids down at the corner with nothing to eat? If a man is making a honest living at what they do then that's good, but to take that mans living because you can and give it away well that's wrong. P2P is garbage simple as that and I'm not paranoid it's called knowing right from wrong... and it's wrong to share stuff that's not yours to share. I've been using computers long enough to know what's good and what's bad... 23 years of computer use typically gives one the satisfaction of not being paranoid... but informed. If p2p worked only amongst REAL TRUE friends that you actually knew than maybe that would not be so bad, but in fact you are connecting to any fool with a box connected to the net running the darn program, and you know yourself that 60 to 70 % of the net users arn't the brightest light bulbs in the box... when it comes to using the INTERNET I mean.

And that's it in a nut shell :o)

I have seen first hand what Limewire, Kazaa, WinMX, Grokster, and a many others can do to ones box. I've seen Child Porn on some that got uploaded to their box with out their knowledge, I've seen 2 or 3 folks who some how or other ended up with an outrages phone bill because of their 13 year old child not knowing what he was downloading from the p2p network and it installed a dialer... this lady ended up with an $800 phone bill, did I say it was a single lady with two kids and they were far from rich and the fact that someone donated the computer to her because they thought they'd do her a favour? This is the kind of crap I see daily, and this is half the reason I don't agree with sharing with someone you don't know.

Anyway... me wife she waits me gotta go. :o) l8s.

heh yeah. You don't have to tell me. I worked in Technical Support for an ISP for 2 and half years (just recently had to quit to go to school). I've pretty much seen it all.

> Theft is Theft, just like white is white and black is black.

Theft is theft, just like copying is copying.
You are mistaking one for another.

True. If we want to get caught up on the terminology, it is technically "Copyright infringement."

Either way, it's still illegal.

sheesh

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. It was illegal to ride in front of a bus for people with certain skin color.

illegal isn't wrong?

Oh hell... I don't care about your idealism, man. I couldn't care less what color the sky is in your world.

In the courts of the United States of America, Illegal is *definately* wrong.

So you think it was wrong for a black person to ride in front of a bus?

I think your making a mistake in terminology here. Illegal has always been wrong however Illegal has not always been associated with common sense. Yes, back in the day it was illegal for black people to ride in the front of the bus, but guess what, that was a ridiculous law/rule/whatever. It got changed. Just because something is illegal doesnt mean it makes sense. Most stuff that doesnt make sense gets changed. Now, sharing and copying files over p2p networks is illegal and its wrong as well because illegal == wrong. And guess what, this law makes sense. Why should you get something for free that someone else worked to create?

> Why should you get something for free that someone else worked to create?

Why should you get anything at all for that matter? Why should you get freedom of speech? Freedom of movement? Freedom of (or from) religion? Why should you be free to do whatever you want with a COPY of a thing someone else has?

Oh gosh...

You're one of *those*

You cannot honestly tell me you are comparing filesharing to freedom speech, religion, etc...

Get a grip.

Nice argument.

so you teach your kids not to use p2p programs because it's possible they may download a virus instead of teaching them to avoid downloading viruses....I suppose then you also teach your kids not to drive because they may get into an accident, do not cross the street because you may get hit by a car, do not go to school because you may get into a fight, do not watch tv because you may hear a curse word, do not play any sports whatsoever because you may get hurt, etc etc...

Do I really need to elaborate?

I thought we had intelligent, educated people on these forums. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just finding it hard to understand what you might not get from my comment.

what??? How does that make any sense? Copyrighted material, a piece of work that someone owns...you have no right to it whatsoever unless the owner lets you use it. Freedom of speech? I make a song and somehow because you have freedom of speech you have freedom to take my song without paying me for it? Your argument makes no sense, it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

> Oh gosh...
> You're one of *those*
> Get a grip.

You are right. No need to elaborate.
Your arguments are quite sufficient.

Not with your song, with a COPY of your song I should be able to do whatever I want.

Just like I should not be able to do whatever I want with your car, but I should be able to do whatever I want with a copy of your car I make.

umm... ok. Just skip right over the key sentence.

That's fine. Lots of people pick and choose what they want to listen to and believe. Have fun with those tweezers.

This is an issue with so many twists and turns, sometimes it makes my head spin to consider it. That said, let me break it down the way it seems to me:

#1: The growth of the RIAA and MPAA as middlemen in the relationship between the recording artist and the media-purchasing consumer is itself part of the current problem. These organizations have effective control of both the artists themselves and the prices and indeed content handed to the consumer. This means that it is difficult to look at the RIAA or MPAA and not see the face of corporate greed. By their nature, they produce no product (at least intellectual product), add no benefit to the consumer, and yet suck a large percentage of the profit out of every transaction. "Facilitation" bears a high price, indeed. HOWEVER: Sadly, nothing these organizations are doing is explicityly illegal. They and their member companies have the right to set prices as they choose. Now, as I have seen discussed elsewhere, legal and moral are by no means equivalent, but like most of what transpires in corporate America, if it isn't illegal, we have no real grounds to oppose it legally no matter how much we dislike that. We always, of course, have the right to speak out, and especially to stop buying the music. But does a sense of moral outrage make the next step (copying or "pirating") a valid response?

#2: It is undeniably true "fair use" provisions have, in the past, allowed consumers to back up their purchased recordings. Note, however, that the industry has ALWAYS been careful to avoid allowing consumers the ability to copy works and distibute them. Witness the long gap before the introducion of dual-deck VCRs, CD-burning technology, etc. after they were already both technically feasible and commercially viable. So let this be perfectly clear: if 1 person buys a recording, and 2 end up with it, ILLEGAL ACTIVITY HAS OCCURRED. Whether you copy a VHS tape or CD and give it to someone, or download yourself a copy of your favorite song on MP3, a crime (albeit a minor one) has been committed. Please note that I am in no way commenting on the morality of such an act; while I personally believe it to be wrong, I am not deaf to arguments to the contrary.

[NOTE: Even copying music from the radio (mentioned in this forum) is perhaps not legally as clear-cut as some might think, though up until now (a) the lesser quality of radio broadcasts made them of little value as "copies" of works and (b) the universality of the signals made the concept of "giving them" to another person a difficult one at best. Thus, it has just simply never come up. Now, with the advent of XM and Sirius and the like, which are (a) high quality and (b) purchased, I wonder if the battle may not indeed cross over into this media as well.]

So, combining points 1 and 2 above, the question becomes: do we have a right to engage in a morally-questionable but ILLEGAL activity in order to protest an immoral but LEGAL activity on the part of the industry groups. In this forum, an excellent example was given of the fact that blacks were once required in the Deep South states to ride in the backs of busses (really one of the smaller injustices of the day those people faced, but I digress). This example was used to suggest that an illegal activity (sitting forward in the bus) which was undertaken to combat an immoral legality (the Jim Crow laws) is an acceptable behavior. To this I heartily agree, with these caveats: (a) the above action would be fought directly against a morally reprehensible set of laws, which can (in hindsight) be clearly seen to be perversions of the laws of the various states involved; and (b) aside from the violation of said laws, the action to be taken is not itself even questionable as being "wrong". Indeed, the mere act of sitting forward in a bus has of itself no real moral value at all. My conclusion is that these are the differences between that case and the one we debate: here, (a) there is no direct confrontation of ANY particular law that must be changed, just a sense of outrage that "we're being screwed by the industry"; and (b) the actions themselves (copying or downloading songs, movies, etc.) are, as discussed above, illegal and of questionable morality regardless of the current situation. Even if the RIAA and MPAA did not play their current roles, it would still be illegal to copy and distribute media. This despite comments I have seen saying "I wouldn't do it if they just charged $0.50 a song", etc.

So the only way I can interpret the situation is that file-sharing copyrighted works is simply not justified, and as much as we may dislike corporate activities, we must look for better ways to combat them.

I look forward to others' arguments for/against my position. I definitely think we all fight back a little just by keeping the discussion going.

> You cannot honestly tell me you are comparing
> filesharing to freedom speech, religion, etc...

That is your "Key" sentance?
:-)
Like I said, nice arguments.

Wow. You know...you are right. When I sit here and look beyond my own actions and feelings towards the subject, I realize just how I am acting. I am acting like a child who doesn't want a toy taken away. "It's mine, I want it! Give!" If I was a person just getting started learning about computers, and just getting started learning about mp3's and all that...there's no way that I would want to deal with the filesharing programs. Not with all the bunk and media going on around the usage of such programs. But I am not a newbie here..I've been using computers for a good long time. I was there when napster got started. I was there when napster got crushed.

I am really acting more like a kid who found a toy on the playground...took that toy to be my own, only to find out later that it belongs to someone else...they want it back or else they will tell thier mommy (lol!), but I don't want to give it up. "Mine!"

*Sigh...*

I guess there is one solution that might make everyone happy, (except for the people like me, going through the 'little-kid' syndrome).

Is there a possibility that filesharing programs could focus on only one filetype (or genre) to be able to share across the net? I mean...I would LOVE for there to be a p2p filesharing app that is built for the SOLE use of promoting, searching for, and downloading Linux distros, plugins, drivers, and all other applications for the os. Do not include music, do not have videos. There's no need for that in a linux filesharing program (unless it's an audio or video tutorial session or something, but hey, give that it's own category too!).

I just realized something interesting here. I think I truely fear the days ahead. Do you realize that we are mere inches away from having our PC privacy being torn away from us? It will not be long at all before the music industry starts making deals with other corporations, like microsoft, symantec, etc..., to have the music and video scanning, removal and reporting function built right into thier software. I am sorry, but there is almost a primordial fear...and rage response that I will have to that issue. What I do on my own property, in my own house, on my own pc...that is my business. The RIAA has absolutely NO right to infringe upon my computer usage. Nobody has that right. Hell, I don't even want my family and friends onto my computer sometimes, why in the hell would I want to allow some cheap a** recording industry into MY computer for any purpose. I am sorry, but if you scan my computer for data, and then delete that data...you are no better than a virus author, and I will sue your ass. Ugh....I'm done. This whole idea is seriously making me sick to my stomach.

yes it is.

If you don't get it, well... I don't know how to explain it to you without saying the same thing over again. It's like trying to teach someone multiplication that hasn't learned addition yet.

Another powerful argument. Keep calling your opponent stupid without saying anything on the subject.

That's bad logic. In order to make a copy of the car, you would have to build it. You don't "build" (write) the music by copying it. It's different because you're trying to mix tangible and intangible products.

You do not buy the music when you pay for it. All you buy is the right to listen to that music.

You do not own it. I think I've said that about 200 times now on this site. Yet people still don't get it...

I'm not calling you stupid. Please don't mis-understand me. I'm not trying to be offensive or mean.

I'm calling it exactly as I see it. Sometimes, the truth hurts I guess =/

I know you calling it exactly as you see it.
I am saying you don't see very well.

When someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't necessarily mean he does not understand you. But I guess that concept is too complex for your primitive mind.

It is good that you acknowledge your limited intellectual abilities. Maybe be you can still learn.

If you understand but still do not accept it, then there's no hope. There's also no use in arguing any further in that case, since you have apparently made up your mind that you will continue to illegally copy music, and you don't care what anyone says.

I hope that attitude serves you well.

I have chosen to accept reality.

I do understand what you are saying, and I consider what you are saying to be wrong. Those terms are not mutually exclusive. Is that such a difficult concept?

For example, if you were to say that 2+2=5, I would understand what you said, and I would have considered it to be wrong.

I never said I illegally copied anything, yet alone music. I was discussing current US laws on the subject which I consider to be wrong. That's all.

>Get a grip.

Practice what you preach.

That is the best comment on the P2P file-sharing situation I have ever read.

Well said.

The same is true of truck brokers. The majority of truck freight in this country is inflated due to third parties "having their hand in the cookie jar."
Stealing music, vids, software, etc because you think too many people are getting paid too much? Highjack a couple of loads of sneakers
and see how illegal this method of proving some inane point is.
If you wish to make a statement to any corporate entity, stop buying and encourage others to do the same. Stealing their content only goes to prove its valuable enough that you will buy if if they figure how to prevent you from stealing it.

They are really attacking it from the wrong angle at this point. This action will only try to fix the problem AFTER it has been created, which will only antagonize both parties. Not good.

If they really want to be pro-active, they should develop software for Networks to block the TRAFFIC. Of course people will find a way around it, but that's life. From my point-of-view, this is just stupid. They're grabbing for straws now.

I agree that it won't really solve anything. They recording industry blew it by not recognizing the potential early on and nipping in the bud years ago. The internet grew from the ideal that it and everything on it should be shared and free. The file sharing stemmed from this and has just ballooned thanks to the advent of MP3 players.

@wincement
totally agree with you. I think this matter is really served with as much objectivity as possible. and as you state, the most probable and just solution will probably spark another way around that, but hey, yes, thats life and more I think thats the life we want in our type of society.

They just think they have a problem with piracy now. They aint seen nothing yet. Theyre gonna turn alot of otherwise honest people into pirates, like Microsoft has done with their activation B.S.

So... the anti-piracy measures create MORE pirates? I fail to see the logic.

It may not be logical, but alot of people dont like being told that something they just bought, isnt actually theirs. You`re just renting it, and its not yours to do with as you want. they`ll try to get it free next time, if they have to steal it.

Ok I understand that. I didn't see you mention that in your original comment. But you have to admit, those cases are rare. Why would you download something if you already had it?

That's because marketing doesn't really explain that before the purchase, and we all know that no one really reads the license agreements before they use/install a product.

The second they start rooting around my hard drive without my permission is the second before I call my lawyer and sue their asses off.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

It may be private use now, but tell me...how long before it starts being bundled with paranoid ISP install packages?

That would be genocide lol.

My point exactly...but some dips***'s gonna try it..guaranteed.

if i hadent read this article 3 times, i would think im just trippin, do they acctually expect this to stop p2p, ROLF

OK, if it uninstalls P2P, it could be a good corporate tool. But tell me how this will actually differentiate between what is and isn't a legal fair use? I don't know that they can.

Anyhow, I guess if it's against policy at a workplace to not rip audio, etc., it might help an IT department. But let's be realistic. This is a high-profile release of software that is scantly useful, dangerous by description, and tell me, if you're an IT manager, are you excited to roll this out?

Not if it automatically deletes files or automatically uninstalled applications...if it sent us a list of suspect files/apps on a machine and have us take care of it manually, then we'd consider it.

This tool would be useless even in a corporate environment. If you want a tool that scans computers for certain applications and MP3's, then take the 10 minutes and write a script.

geh this sounds like a virus! How th eheck is it going to really know what it deletes was legal to delete?

most of my music on my laptop is legit, mm yeh most heh. It had better not be hungry. (not just for my sake, course i'll laugh this prog off)

I guarentee you they will be sued for this. They have no right to go onto someones computer and start deleting software. It is a violation of privacy. Who the hell do these people think they are? If you want people to stop pirating stop charging people $15-19 dollars for an album that is worth less than half that value. Anyone with any shred of intelligence knows what goes on with these companies, how they "create" celebrities and how they have fat guys working 24/7 to develop a new smash hit for their large-breasted superstars. The only people buying music these days are the idiots. The charts reflect this.

"It is free, voluntary and for private use only and does not tip-off any anti-piracy organizations," the groups assured.

You have to opt-in if you are user. They won't be sued for anything.

Check out MarcFou's post. I can almost guarantee that something like that is going to happen. The film and record industries are killing themselves. Suing file sharers, publishing software that will obviously used for malicious purposes, and other acts are going to end up promoting more piracy as a method for hurting oppressive corporations. They don't know what their limits are, and I pray that the federal government will intervene in order to protect the individual citizen (which is strangely the creed of a "true" Republican, but those don't really exist anymore).

are you actually commenting on an article you didnt read

until it's repackaged and sent out as...

....a virus.

....a windows .exe file with a name everyone(idiots) will want to run (wintune.exe?)

....IE exploit.

....etc (I am sure those willing to do such things can be far more creative on how to deploy it.)

Somehow... I don't think they'll want to get that creative lol. Too much effort, and when/if they were caught, that would be the end.

Depends on who were talking about...and exactly how traceable it is back to the person who repackaged it.

it would have to be distributed as spyware/adware to slip under the radar of some users and then operate like a trojan.

Of course anybody who would not catch an install like this would most indefinitely be a dumb a** and deserves to be stopped from downloading & exiled from the file sharing community.

they are getting dumber and dumber do you think people will actually download/install this?

This will turn into a bogus download on p2p so the movie assc. can remove content from peoples drives.

"All I did was open this file named windows_update.exe and all my divx files are gone!"

Tested my AV client a year or two ago by downloading an app I *knew* could not be real.

SWG_ACCOUNT_GENERATOR.EXE

Had to be a virus, right?

It was.

Best part? it wasn't on my system for more than half a second. It was deleted by the AV program before my P2P app could even register the file as seeding.

Funny though...how I got a cease & desist letter in the mail 3 days later...from LucasArts. Never ran it, never had it on my system for even a full second, yet somehow they knew I'd grabbed it.... "things that make you go, hmmm..."

Heh... at least I knew my AV worked.

Hey, I've even heard that one of the more obscure file sharing programs was a RIAA/MPAA sting operation. They track the IPs of users and get their names from ISPs...

shocked...well, not really.

Wow. I don't think I can articulate how stupid I think this is. ...Wow.

Do you think they could write one that gets rid of all the crap songs that artists are forced to record to fill up the over priced CD? :-)

"a program that will remove or block file-sharing programs"

I hope that means specific ones, such as Kazaa or Blubster.

That'd be so easy to get around as to be almost humorous.

Omfg guys the fact is, people will allways download music. legal or not. and unless the u.s. becomes china we allways will dl music.

stealing music and even software when one cant afford it shoudln't be stealing either.
for fact that they wouldn't buy it anyway.

now don't go and say thats a rule of thumb for everything. but digital music is intangible.

poor people shoudln't have to starve or be without culture/frivelous software.
and obviously we think that way, everyone pays for school taxes that rents/owns a home.
and alot of us dont have kids.

"stealing music and even software when one cant afford it shoudln't be stealing either.
for fact that they wouldn't buy it anyway."

Along that same line of logic, if someone can't afford a Porshe, and they steal it, that shouldn't be called stealing ...since they wouldn't buy it anyway...

"poor people shoudln't have to starve or be without culture/frivelous software."

You're absolutely right on the first point. Poor people shouldn't have to starve. I don't see how illegally acquiring music helps that situation.

I'm confused... =((

wincement: I agree with everything you have to say and I surprised that so many people on a "tech site" find it so hard to understand why downloading copyrighted music/software is illegal.

And then there are people who can't spell Porsche correctly.

Thanks for the correction. Good thing you're around.