This is something i dont get...
If limewire is piracy why doesnt the spyware stuff see that and block it or somthing?

Limewire should either shut down or make its music cost some money. Its wrong to steal so why would u want to steal music. Its no differen than stealing a car or a dvd or a handbag.

The RIAA pulling crap like this really makes me lose faith in the free market. But i guess as long as theres copyright laws to exploit, the RIAA and MPAA will be right there to exploit them.

I think part of this about perception - it is wrong to steal but it's not black and white there are so many grey areas in between. The legal definition of the word steal is - "to take with the intention of permanently depriving" so to prove stealing in a court of law you have to prove not only the theft but the intent. Now with copied music you could argue there is not even permanent depriving of the artist but only the music business of revenue. Also, you need show that they lost revenue as a result ie if I couldn't copy it would I have bought it? In most cases the answer is no but in some cases the answer is yes in which case there is intent. I think most people confronted by an actual artist who said "hey mate, you stole my song and you owe me some money" would put their hands up and say " fair cop - how much do I owe you" but when the RIAA says it people say "sod off - you must have me confused with someone that gives a toss" We just don't like being milked like worker ants by anonymous business leeches.

Stealing = taking that which does not belong to you.

You didn't buy the song, it doesn't belong to you. You stole it.

See how simple that is?

It's not a question of perception. It's entitled brats searching for any excuse for their complete inability to reason.

As I read your post I find myself hoping like hell that you are younger than eighteen. The thought of anyone older than eighteen actually believing that crap is a damn shame.

In this case we are talking about copyright infringement not "stealing"... in either case your attempts to justify illegal file sharing through perception of laws, the perceived value of intellectual property or intent to deprive are baseless. You are not being milked... if you can't afford the music then live without it.

It's sad that there are so-called adults out there that feel if you don't share their view, you lack morals and that everything is black and white. The simple fact of the matter is you can tell from their posts that they've already fallen into blindly following whatever law is passed. Their used to be laws that forbade the use of lipstick, so who ever put it on anyone is immoral. Bright. These people have very little faith in the human race, are bitter about their current lives and feel since they have bend over and take it everyone else should. I actually feel bad for them but I have other things to take care of. The real criminals I've seen use Limewire to copy an album and try and sell it. Whatever. I'm done. You can't reach people who are that preachy, bitter and cynical. You already defined the legal definition of stealing and they're retort is, you're young. Which of course you must be if you don't agree with them. Notice in many of the posts when you answer with a comeback to a remark they read you either see, Grow UP, you're a child or well you're still stealing. Don't waste precious energy arguing with these people. Someone that bitter and cynical over life as to just accept whatever they're told they must is to be pitied.

It is clear that you have decided that what you want is more important than the rights of another and the law. I am certain that if you earned a living in the record industry you would feel differently. You do not have a divine right to anything that belongs to someone else... period. Your ad hominem argument does not prove your case, it only shows that your twisted logic is running dry. The use of lipstick does not infringe upon the rights or property of another person... no comparison. Like I said a few days ago, stop trying to justify your actions and just do it.

Usually, I would agree with your opinion that people in the entertainment industry need to have a safeguard against illegal piracy. They deserve to "get paid" for their work, just as anyone else. However, given the technical advances that have been made since the 1970's which enable people to re-record pre-recorded tapes, copy and re-burn CD's and DVD's, I fail to see the logic of restricting people from sharing their music over the Internet. This kind of activity will continue as long as there is entertainment to enjoy. The simple fact that the Internet has opened up the opportunities that existed long before, is irrelevant.

You still haven't answered, who does it hurt? If they're not selling it, who not getting their money?

It's not incumbent upon anyone here to expalin and/or defend the US Copyright Laws in such a manner as to meet with your acceptance or approval.

It is, on the other hand, incumbent upon you (along with all of us) to obey the law. The Copyright Laws are not applicable at your convenience; and your question about the so-called "victimless crime" is irrelevant.

Who does it hurt?

If I steal a car from a car dealership, who does it hurt?

If I steal a loaf of bread from a store, who does it hurt?

Does it make any difference that digital downloadsd of CD's are easier to make?

My question to you:

How do you morally justify taking that which does not belong to you. I don't care about price or availability. It's not yours, how do you justify taking it?

If not hurting someone is the only rule by which you measure morality...

If I steal a car from a car dealership, who does it hurt?
If I steal a loaf of bread from a store, who does it hurt?

I have to say, I am a little disappointed in you. Most of your posts are intelligent, and I look forward to reading them; but you had to know those were some of the worst analogies you could choose before you clicked "Post".

Does it make any difference that digital downloads of CD's are easier to make?
Yes, it does. While I am not for rampant copyright infringement, it is easy to see there is indeed a big difference. Theft of a car, a loaf of bread, or any other physical item results in the original owner being unable to sell the physical item. Copying a song does not prevent the sale of that song to the next customer.

In the context the post was made, it makes perfect sense.

DSL's argument was: It doesn't hurt anyone.

Well, neither does stealing a car from a dealership. They have 100's of 'em.

Neither does taking a loaf of bread from a store. Hell, they throw more away than I eat in a year.

My point is simply that scale does not, and should not morally justify *anything*.

Wrong is wrong, man. ;)

As for copying a song not hurting the author, well, that depends on how you look at it. ;) (And claiming you'd have never purchased it anyway is a cop-out)

Wrong is wrong
Except when it is soooo right. :P

I wonder if "piracy" would be reduced or increased if they allowed people to return CDs they were unsatisified with?

I'm guessing increase. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I have zero faith in the human race. They'd buy it, rip it, and return it.

I'm guessing increase...
Yeah, you are probably right. I don't give us much credit either. But it could decrease...never underestimate the laziness that could prevent the returns.

Laziness...

...the success of Mail-In Rebates. ;)

Question: If I illegally download a song that is out of print because the music company decided that, who is being hurt? They're not even selling it anymore. So who's suffering. Nonexistent sales? What?

WEll, you're just one more person who won't be buying if they *do* re-release it.

And you're also incapable, apparently, of any form of self control, respect for others property, rights, or work.

If you refer back to previous comments of mine, if I like, I find it, they sell it, I'll buy it. That way you are lining the pockets of the artist you like (albeit maybe not a lot), and maybe the music company will start putting there stuff out on the market more often.

..and if they don't sell it, you find it and download it anyway.

Somehow, you feel you're entitled to it, even if the author does not want to distribute it.

That's neat. I wish I could play 6-year old for a while.

The key word in your question is *ILLEGALLY* which indicates that you are *BREAKING THE LAW*.

You continue to equivocate between a line (drawn by you) which separates those illegal acts which are "acceptable" and those which are not.

People use the very same distinction forother crimes, as in: "We were both drinking and she said liked it, so what's the harm ?" OR "She was 89 years old and was going to die soon anyway, so I didn't see the harm in using some of her money."

Or, even better..."That song has been out of print and circulation for so long who will care if I use it in my movie and make lots of money ?"

Eventually, someone will commt a crime where *you* will be the victim and then "So what's your problem?" will somehow just not make it...do ya think?

"I wish I could play 6-year old for a while."

Your retort is very insightful. :)

Yes, in the eyes of the law I am committing a crime, but I'm not going to feel immoral over a song. Yes I am a criminal. But it's not that big a deal. I'm not selling it, I'm not using it for anything other than personally listening to it and when they sell the song again, I'll buy it, so again no one is being harmed. Illegally downloading a song is not on par with rape or murder. I shouldn't have to point out why. That should be clear.

I already stated earlier I have been the victim of stealing several times and other far worse acts. If they get caught all I would want is for them to pay what I paid for it. It's an item and though it's being stolen cost me, I'm not going to make an even bigger issue of it. I wouldn't want them to go to jail or anything, just pay for it.

Cuz it's wrong? Because whether it's more or less wrong doesn't really enter into it?

Did no-one teach you that taking something not belonging to you, that have no permission to take, is wrong?

Did you miss that little life-lesson?

Get's the point across.

Let me phrase it differently in case you missed it:

You have the moral understanding of right and wrong that the average 7 year old has surpassed.

The fact that you insist on repeatedly attempting to justify your actions is a joke. You are copying a song and using it for it's intended purpose without paying for it, it is a big deal. You made a point to mention that you are not selling the songs... the issue here is Limewire and they are making a profit from facilitating your actions. It is nice to see that you do realize that it is wrong.

I think the real issue here is whether a mental construct (such as: a pattern of bits, sequence of sounds, or series of symbols, arrangement of colors) can and/or should be owned.

What if the uncompressed encoding of a current top 10 song happened to also be the same bit sequence of an encoding of War and Peace in a proprietary format? How many parties could get in on that lawsuit? The RIAA, the book's publisher and author, and the software company owning that format.

I know it is a far-fetched possibility, almost exclusively existing in the imagination; but we are talking about intellectual property.

What if the uncompressed encoding of a current top 10 song happened to also be the same bit sequence of an encoding of War and Peace in a proprietary format?

Possible, but I could write 'language interpreter' that would take the digital encode of any song and turn it into anything else.

I'd imagine that is such a thing occurred, intent and use would play a big part in hashing out the details.

That same uncrompressed recording would have to be viewed in a seperate program than what it was originally intended for, that's for sure. ;)

Inellectual Property and copyright exists to *foster* creativity and innovation.

Yeah, I know. Hard to believe, right?

It's intent is clear. Unfortunately, it's been twisted by RIAA and other organizations and used to defeat the very purpose for which it was concieved.

This does not, however, make taking that which does not belong to you right. :)

DarkSideLady is easy, man. You actually think before you speak. That makes it harder. You bas****. ;)

You actually think before you speak. That makes it harder. You bas****. ;)
Yup, I am an immoral bas****. I have grown beyond the concepts of "good and evil" and "right and wrong"; and see things how they truly are. Muwhahhaha

lmao..

Grazer=Lawnmower Man.

*grin*

Perhaps the pre-digital one?

*ducks*

Perhaps the pre-digital one?
Nope, 1's and 0's are not enough for me. I need 2's dammit! Give me 2's!

But seriously...sort of....
By the pre-digital version, I assume you mean prior to any treatments. Well, we know that can't be the case because he was innocent; I have attained nowhere near that level of separation from good and evil.

Wow.

I thought I was the only one who actually watched that movie. ;)

Suing Limewire will not fix the problem. They need to find a way to charge a reasonable price for people to share legally and find those hard to get songs. I lot of the sites that went legal I bought to try out and they do not have the majority of those hard to get songs. Popular ones are easy to find and should be bought through the legal channels. For the ignorant SilentMaster and PC_Tool who want to get pissy over songs and lump everyone in as criminals who lack ethics and morals just because a song, get a brain. Limewire deserves to be in court and will probably lose but nothing will change until a middle ground is reached. Dumb preachers!!

Suing Limewire will not fix the problem.

Limewire deserves to be in court and will probably lose

Contradicting yourself in the same rant.

That's rich.

Upset when I call you a criminal for downloading music illegally? Get used to it. It's called reality. There are these things called lawes. If you beak them, that makes you a criminal. boo-hoo.

Hmm....

That's not a contradiction if you think logically. Limewire is making money off of something that is illegal so they deserve to be in court. But will it stop people from illegally downloading? No. Does that now make sense to you? Breaking the law and being immoral are two separate things. One is defined by lawmakers and the other should be defined by each individual. I don't care if you call me a criminal. In the eyes of the law, I am one. But I'm not exactly immoral or without ethics over a silly song.

Breaking the law and being immoral are two separate things.

Except in the case where the law is just and right.

Morals are not defined by individuals.

For instance: Killing is wrong. Always has been, always will be, you're opinion be damned.

There's no such thing as individual morals. Morals are not subject to social conditions, political situations, or your own petty desires.

But I'm not exactly immoral or without ethics over a silly song.

Yes. You are.

In this case the law being just and right is a matter of opinion. As you see there are people on here who don't agree with that particular law. Killing on par with downloading a song? Didn't we cover this before. As far as killing being 100% wrong there are some who could debate that as well, such as when you're life is threatened. A child was murdered and you killed that person. Are they wrong? Some say yes, some say no. It still boils down to individual morals. Just because someone doesn't share your view on something as minor as a song doesn't make them evil incarnate either. It's just a silly song as you guys have pointed out so what's the big deal. If you don't want to illegally download, that's your choice. I can't decide that for you.

lmao

How do you justify stealing, then? How is it moral to download something that doesn't belong to you?

How do you justify making a mockery of someone elses rights and hard work?

I love limewire, I hear a good song on the radio from an artist releasing a new CD, I download that song I heard, download several others from the same artist, if I like them I go and buy the cd. If I don't I discard of the mp3s.

It's funny because most of everyone I know does this exact same thing, most of the time there's only that 1 good song on the CD and the radio stations play it out so there's no purpose in buying that 1 song or the entire album. This must be why record companies and the RIAA are pissed. haha

TALENTLESS ARTIST ARE THE REASON FOR THE DROP IN RECORD SALES!!!!!!!!!

ooo lets start a TV show and make a STAR!!! but....when their album is released it sucks, they were only good singing other peoples songs that were good. All artists do now adays just remake other artists music and just "change it up" .....yeah THe only music worth buying is Techno/Trance. They're the only ORIGINAL musicians. They create music, not take credit for someone elses music..

Try going to their website, genius.

Try using any of the music sites that allow you to try before you buy.

Try to think before acting.

There are many ways to legally listen to music before you buy it. Limewire is not one of them.

Your justification sucks because there are countless *legal* ways to accomplish the same thing. Apparently you just couldn't be bothered to find them, or even consider the possibility.

Very true. I'm not gonna spend $20 for a couple of good songs. If companies are no longer concerned with the quality the music put out, they'll suffer. When I find songs from an artist I like and there all on the same album, I'll buy it. Utada Hikaru has some great music, all the songs on her album are great so I ordered it. Testing before you buy. Nothing wrong with that. It's the people who will illegally download a whole album and never bother to buy it are in the wrong. Most stores I search around my way don't carry what I'm looking for, so I download and, if I like, I buy. I'm not gonna waste money supporting an artist who's only concern was putting out one good song. It's a waste of my money. I like getting my money's worth. Over some stupid songs, people want to label others immoral. How stupid can you get? Pathetic.

I like techno. I have a few cds of that. Also asian music is really good. The soundtrack for that movie Take Care Of My Cat is amazing. You might want to check it out, maniakmx3. Good instrumentals.

Apparently stupid enough to steal and still think themselves morally and ethically just.

As stupid as thinking morals and laws go hand in hand. Hmm, then you could be right.

Stealing is moral?

Really?

Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving child...when there is no other way for you to feed them? (Admittedly, food is a necessity whereas music and entertainment are normally not considered such; but the conversation does seem to be steering towards moral absolutes.)

Yes.

But then, I'd also be pretty damn sure some other wrongs were done, either by society or by the parents themselves.

Heh... But it would *also* be wrong not to feed that family and their starving children. ;)

Good one. Not really relevant to RIAA though. *grin*

Yes.

But then, I'd also be pretty damn sure some other wrongs were done, either by society or by the parents themselves.

So, if a child getting the food they need is a "right" (as in "good", not entitlement),and stealing to feed that child is wrong, and society forcing the parent/guardian to resort to that is wrong; then....

wrong + wrong = right :P

Heh...Come on... Even at the young age of 6 my parents had taught me the ever useful mathematical formula:

wrong+wrong!=right.

Sheesh... ;)

I did say I was an immoral bast***...wait that is not quite right, I do know my father, and he's a great guy :)

Well okay, then. Good enough for me.

Come on RIAA, keep going...
They now sue all the P2P services, what next?
Will they ask us to shutdown the entire Internet, if they can't stop even after that !LOL!.

Quoting DarkSkyLady:

"If I can't find the song I want, I'm going to get it by whatever means necessary. Call me a thief because I want a freakin song!!! Give me a break. I'm not going to miss out on quality music because the big record companies, along with the radio stations don't feel that song is good enough to put out."

In other words: "If I can't get what I want legally, I'll be sure to take it any way possible. And that's OK since *I'm* the one who decides which activities are morally acceptable and which aren't."

Oh grow the f**k up !

BOO HOO...The song I want is out of print and I can't find it anywhere...Waaaahhh...

That's life. Sometimes things don't go your way and you can't get what you want and people have a right to protect their business interests...be it the recording or pornography industry.

LOL

How many children on here are going to say grow up. Maturity doesn't factor into it. If I can't find a song, I'm not going to go out of my mind over it, but if I can find it, I'll get it. I'm not going to feel bad or immoral just because I downloaded one song from an artist instead of buying their whole sucky album. Which is why they should've kept selling singles. Then you know exactly what song you're getting. Can't find that anywhere anymore. Wah!

You take that which does not belong to you.

You take that you have not been given permission by the owner to possess.

Maturity doesn't factor into it?

My 8 yr-old son knows better than that.

PC, you have anymore pearls of wisdom for us morally bankrupt folks? We're all ears.

2 words.

Grow

Up.

That about covers it.

get a job maybe?
how about respect other peoples property?
how about come back when you are 18?
you know like in 6 years?

The flow of free information on the internet has much more pressing issues that should be addressed before you start barking about songs. There's websites that promote racism and genocide but because that doesn't hurt anyone's pockets people like PC_rat's, (nice one Sexbarril), MORALS and ETHICS, probably aren't smarting like they should. Money isn't being taken away, just minds poisoned so I guess that's okay. Which show you how backwards the US is. Where the dollar is favored above all else, including human life. Oh, but I forgot, I lack MORALS.

lmao..

Because one wrong is, in your view, more wrong than another, we should ignore the lesser?

Beautiful.

Murder is worse than rape, let's get rid of all murders before we do *anything* about rape, then, K?

Brilliant.

Nice try on hijaking the topic, BTW. We're not *talking* about racism, if we were, I'd be just as against it.

Good troll. I especially love the "Information wants to be free" nod in your first sentance.

So, your morals and ethics only stop you from being a genocidal racist, eh? I'd work on those then, if I were you.

BTW; It's PC_Tool. PC_Rat is the MS-basher.

so because you cant have a song for free thats putting the dollar above human rights? your not going to ****ing die because you cant have a song, so shut the hell up and produce your own music. maybe then you would respect copyright laws.

If you want to blindly follow whatever law is passed because THE MAN says so, you go ahead and be the child that can't think for yourself. All those "GROW UP" comments are really mature. I commend you on your choice of phrase. I remember hearing those remarks in high school from little boys. If I don't agree with you then I don't agree. You want to say someone lacks morals over a freaking song and wah-wah over it, have fun. The people who preach morals and ethics are usually the ones lacking it the most. You think just because you can type and form full sentences that makes you a grownup. Congrats!! In the meantime, stop acting like an almighty know it all. You want to follow a law just because it's a law that's your problem. Me, I'll take necessary steps with other to help change it.

You're an idiot.

Copyright isn't THE MAN. It protects artists and authors.

You're just too ignorant to realize it. It's so much easier for you and your ilk to claim oppression and call yourselves 'freedom fighters, sticking it to THE MAN' than to actually take responsibility for your actions and consider the consequences and how those actions affect others.

I'll follow the law because it is *right*. You don't follow it because it's *too much trouble*, or *denys you a song*.

Pirating is *not* going to change it the way you want it to. Priating will only serve to give RIAA and the industry *MORE* ammunition in their efforts to *completely* lock down *all* forms of media.

You're an idiot. You exist only for yourself, thinking of no-one else. You can't see 1 minute aheead of your actions. You take nothing into consideration but your own gratification. You are the lowest common denominator.

You have the moral understanding of a 6 year-old.

Copyright isn't THE MAN. It protects artists and authors.
I would say it was intended to protect artists and authors.

Yeah, I usually put that in there. Good catch.

i wonder if rjip dies or something, he has not posted here....

I wonder if PC_rat will complain this post is not on topic.

Latz, SB

BN banned him. Back when he was going off on their stories, much like the RAT is doing.

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. ;)

so not even a usefull idea there? just gonna go all-out troll right from the start this time eh?

Limewire will win this one.

The client / network associtation is different from its predecessors.

With no way to control the network, they can only hope people use the client lwithin the confines of the law.

Victory RIAA because of money.

Latz, SB

LimeWire is not 100% P2P.

Because you still gotta download this client software, and login to a list of pre-compiled servers, and we can call these central servers.

You can't really just install the software, and log onto nowhere.

So, there will always be a media of some kind to broadcast the list. And promotion of the client software. :P

LimeWire is just like an ebay, is a middle man.

But eBay does not really protect the law in many circumstances.

So it's a controversial issue whether or not LimeWire and similar services are really legal or not.

A hell of a lot less than 90% of eBay's users are legit.

Think you'll get the same stats from limewire?

Not bloody likely.

Good luck with that.

all I can say... OMG

I think for the first time in a long time, I am simply stunned by that stupidity.

~dnc

damn, time to download like bandits...

GCoder wants to be one of the next batch of 715 sued by the RIAA....

$150,000 per occurrence? and the RIAA claims that Limewire are the crooked ones? I hope Limewire goes to court and doesn't give in to their bullying because I strongly believe that Limewire could win the case.

Even if they can win, it will cost Limewire this much in legal fee. Remember, RIAA is an army of lawyers, they can drag the lawsuit until your dead.

altern8energy...

another post from a walking waste of human flesh.... be gone looser

Nice job modirators.... wake up!!!

Post your racist BS elsewhere.

Seriously, where *are* the mods?

I think the main problem is that business and laws can't keep up with changing technology. Widespread global Internet access means that people are not necessarily bound by the laws of a particular country (ie USA) and therefore while it may be illegal in one place, it may not be illegal in another. The fact that Limewire can be used legally (for any purpose) in any country means there is a justified reason for it's existence. To handcuff a software distributor so that they must vet potential clientele on their geographical location and their proposed use of their software is as rediculous as US internet companies that won't offer a service outside the US. What the RIAA is trying to do is kill the messenger and not addressing the real issue which is how you protect intellectual property in a world with high speed Internet. You can argue that RIAA is legally right. However, sueing Limewire is not the answer because P2P it's not really the problem. The issue is how to regulate and control the flow of information in an environment that was specifically designed to facilitate the free flow of information? Music is just another form of digital information. It's a unfortunate fact that business caters to the lowest common denominator in human nature. The driving economic force for globalisation of the Internet was the distribution and easy access to pornography. We haven't even come close to stopping that so what makes RIAA think they will stop the free distribution of music? They need to find a business model that accepts the Internet and uses it for profit just as Limewire does.

I was 100% with you and thought your comment was insightful and unbiased until you said:

"...The driving economic force for globalization of the Internet was the distribution and easy access to pornography. We haven't even come close to stopping that..."

Pornography is neither the force for the globalization of the internet, no does anyone have the right to "stop," it.

The Adult industry, while one of the most visible types of content on the web because of it's controversial nature, only accounts for about 7% of the 3.3 billion pages on the web (according to Google.) Now compare that to the number of ecommerce sites of all sizes and ebay, not to mention the billions of non-spam e-mails that traverse the internet on a daily basis that business for the past 10 years have been backboned on.

Because some view this industry as controversial does not mean anyone has the right to stop it. Does a certain level of control need to be maintained for the protection of the underage because of the "adult," content? Sure, I'll concede that, its nature and who it caters to is right in it's name..."the Adult Industry."

It's an industry that has been around longer than some religions, and has outlasted others. The fact that some people view it in an unfavorable way does not make it any more or less legitimate of a global and time tested industry than any other.

In the modern Pornography industry on the web, in print, at your local club or in video stores, there are more controls and safe guards designed around hygiene, human rights and protection of the innocent than in any time in history. Imagine a child prostitute’s life in the Middle Ages, or being subject to the rape that occurs on a daily basis in many 3rd world countries.

If "righteous," people would focus their efforts on the true atrocities in the world they would be accomplishing much more for civil rights of the human race.

Precisely my whole point. You need to find a compromise to make it work for all involved. That's the only way you're going to fix the problem.

and not addressing the real issue which is how you protect intellectual property

Sure they are. It's called DRM. And the folks that use limewire and the rest just give them more and more justification for making it stronger and more invasive.

{sarcasm}
Thanks for that.
{/sarcasm}

why do the record labels need to compromise? its their content, you dont own any part of it.

Host in a country that doesnt recognize US law.. End of story, case closed. I really dont understand why they dont do this.

I think under US law, if you have an office in the state, you have to bound on US laws. So it doesn't matter if server was host somewhere else.

Actually, it's jurisdictional like most laws, so it applies wherever the incident or infraction is said to have taken place. That's true in the US, Canada, EU, Russia, and many Asian countries.

Office there, private bank account there. You withdraw money here in the USA via an ATM card or international check cashed in a secondary account. All of which is 100% legal.

So let me get this straight. They can sue Limewire and other P2P companies for facilitating the trade of music. But we cant sue Gun manufacturers for making those nice semi automatics(which can be converted easily to full autos) which kill people.

Anyone see the irony here?

Anyhow, I hope they mess up in the language and go all the way up to supreme court, maybe this little lawsuit will set a presedent and we can sue Gun Companies. But im sure the RIAA will come to support guns since hey its big bussiness after all, they are all buddies.

Don't mean to burst your bubble here but the chances of that happening are remote considering federal law now specifically prohibit civil liability action against gun manufacturer's under most circumstances. This is because of Public Law No. 109-92, aka Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was signed by the president last fall.

Even in the absence of said law it was rare to hold gun manufacturers' liable because it's very difficult to prove that they were really legally responsible for someone. Leaving the doors unlocked with no security at a company storage facility that was robbed by criminal gangs might be considered criminally negligent. Manufacturing and reselling guns to legitimate gun shops isn't.

Your analogy comparing P2P operators to gun manufacturers isn't pretty poor. Manufacturing guns, no matter how much you might dislike it, is a legal business. Running a network whose primary purpose is to traffic unlicensed copyright materials is not. The RIAA can sue for violation of copyright law. A gun control activist in most cases can't point towards any laws that specifically forbids the actions that allowed someone to kill another person with a gun.

I don't think the RIAA sees eye to eye with the gun industry at all.

That's not Limewire's INTENDED primary purpose though...
Exactly how BitTorrent wasn't intended for that purpose.

/technicality

The RIAA however is going on the premise that P2P facilitates illegal activity. We can draw the same conclusion from Firearms, they facilitate illegal activity.

P2P was not created for Illegal activity, it is a technology to enable the free flow of information.

I know the carrying card members of the NRA dont want to see it that way, but really in essense its basically the same thing. Both facilitate illegal activity, so if you are gona hold one liable for it u better start holding the other for it.

As far as the right to bear arms? Well thats an antiquated law, one that needs to be rewritten fast, aswell as the Penalties for carrying illegal firearms.

All these years I broke copyright laws by singing happy birthday, where should I send my money?

/don't laugh because it's true
/AOL Time Warner owns the copyright

Actually, from a purely legal standpoint (my background) proving intent is the most important and difficult task I see in this claim. It will all boil down to whether RIAA can "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt that Limewire's sole (or primary) purpose/intent is to "facilitate" the sharing of unlicensed copyrighted/trademarked materials.

Limewire will likely counter with a claim that they simply operate an open environment, and cannot dictate the scope of content which is transmitted throughout. You can argue packet filtering, and content sniffing all day, but we all know that content is easy to translate and encode to make that a difficult or impossible effort. In the end RIAA will likely prevail because the courts appear to favor their stance. That goes a long way towards winning a case.

Proving intent of any product or service which is not directly advertised but which was is arguable "widely known" to be true is like proving weather ahead of time. Very difficult at times. Granted, Lime has put themselves in a worse situation by not complying with requests while their peers (bad pun?) did so, or simply quit the business.

The next step for RIAA and MPAA will be to sue FTP and NNTP hosts, even ISPs, using the ammunition of the winning tactic of previous settlements. They might claim the only purpose of NNTP is to share unlicensed copyrighted materials. Sure we can scoff at that idea, but can anyone "prove" that claim wrong? Scarry times.

Well, the different is NFA has an army to lobby the congress in DC and they contribute a lot to Republic campaign.

Remember the golden rule. He who has the gold make the rule. Or The one who make the rule keeps the gold.

Okay Truman.... come out of your bubble.

As sad as this may sound, the only tangable thing that stops the U.S. Federal Government from turning on it's citizens is the fact that the greater majority of the citizens own one or more firearms. This is the deterrent of another U.S. civil war. Failure to learn from history will doom you to repeat it. You take away the right to bear arms and there is nothing to prevent a government from enslaving its citizens. I hope you are smart enough to realize this.

About 2 percent of Americans have the guts to consider that option. Most lay down and take it while complaining, stuffing their faces with fattening foods, soda and flipping through channels with the remote. Come on. If the IRS said they were raising taxes 40% we'd all whine but nobody would turn over cars and burn things or shoot anyone. We're complacent as hell. It may be a mixed blessing. While we don't burn down embassies over newspaper cartoons, we don't get fired up over much at all except when maybe the Superbowl signal is interrupted during halftime.

That has to be the sadest post I have ever seen. If you really think that Bearing arms is the only thing that holds the federal goverment at bay, seriously YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

Gun violence in the US is ridiculous. Im sure its resonable for idiots in Whitehoods to have a stock pile of semi/full auto weapons in their house, I MEAN its the American way. Sadest thing ever.

guns dont kill people, people kill people. guns dont go off when nobody is around to touch them.

Unless they're placed on a tripod and controled via motion sensor and/or off-site remote. ;)

Sounds like fun, don't it?

well technically we could hold the person who walked into the area to suicide, or we could hold the person who set it up to murder.

In a nutshell. I think its more about intent. Limewire (and network) where created to share data weather legal or illegal. Thats what its intent was.
Guns where intended to kill not scare/mame but kill.

If you are going to hold base companies resonsible for the actions of the people who use their products, what laws are good for one are good for all of them.

Also I have no problem buying music but my only problem is that the RIAA is claiming a huge percentage of the profits. For what to bank roll more lawyers.

Lower the price and dump the bureaucrats, they might notice that sales increase.

Intent is great, but it's not the be-all-end-all of responsibility. The companies responsibility goes beyond intent, and to actual use. And don't tell me they have no control. It is their service, after all.

A fine example of how the Copyright Protections have been abused.

Instead of giving tired examples, how about a suggestion on how to *fix* it?

Limits need to be placed on length of copyright and transferability of it.

Example: 20 years or the death of the owner. Not saleable or transferable.

i agree with whiskeymick long live limewire
RIAA is bulls**** i mean after all lots of people still buy cds,programs from stores so the companyies still get resonbable money
plus many people dont get how to work limewire and deal with viruses and etc.so theyll stick with safter things like itunes and stores
limewire is so rich company RIAA cant do sh**t
to a rich and powerful company like limewire
LONG LIVE LIMEWIRE its the best p2p program out there

Duuuude.... Pass the doob..... Come on man....

Maybe internet servers should put aside a little bit of their profits and pass them on to those artists that feel they are losing out. Think about it, if it weren't for those servers no one would have access to this stuff in the first place......Hey, it aint my fault that this stuff is availiable. Nor is it the fault of limewire....Again I say long live Limewire.

lmao...

Yeah, make someone *else* pay for it!!

If the folks listening to it aren't going to pay for it, what makes you thinkt he ISP's are going to?

*shakes head*

Of all the stupid ideas....

What kind of pc "tool" are you? If you can come up with a better idea, then lets have it. Calling someone stupid aint the answer.

Long live limewire. They are providing a great service to music consumers like myself. I download stuff that i am unable to purchase from "normal sources" anymore. I like the Old stuff that is no longer availiable in any normal way ie. record stores. Songs or tunes that are deleted by record companys all over the world. Why do they insist on making money from stuff they have written off?

To point out one other thing about Limewire. When you first download it and look up a song when you click to download the song if it's illegal a little box pops up telling you this. Then you click okay to continue downloading it and there's a smaller box in there where you can check off "Don't show this anymore". You check that off, don't you? I knew it!! HeHeHe!!! People overall make the choice. As illegal as drugs are there are still a demand for them amongst many and while there is still a demand someone will be the supplier. Limewire may go down, but someone somewhere will create another. If RIAA doesn't find a way to make this advantageous for there companies, they'll just be going around in circles. DUMB!!!

Yay!

Let's all give in to the pirates and thieves of the world!

We don't want ot pay for it, so it should be FREE!

All those suckers actually PAYING for the things they want are just pawns of THE MAN, hiding under st00pid ideals like respect, integrity, honesty, ethics and morality. Where have THOSE ever gotten us??

*lmao*

The lengths idiots will go through to try and justify their own complete and total lack of ethics and morals. Your Momma must be *so* proud.

"As illegal as drugs are there are still a demand for them amongst many and while there is still a demand someone will be the supplier."

*lmao* so, are you trying to say that downloading illegal music is an addiction? Should we start setting up 12 step programs for music downloaders?

~dnc

If you want to pay exorbitant prices for an album that usually lacks quality then you go right ahead and spend your hard earned cash. In my opinion filling a greedy companies pockets is the most ridiculous thing a person can do. I prefer to think for myself rather than go well since the MAN says I can't do that and I did it, I'm a bad boy.

MY POINT is, use a little common sense here, that you shouldn't go after the person supplying what people want. Go after the people themselves and, if there are too many, find a compromise where everyone will be satisfied. The only thing that Limewire did that was wrong was try to make money off of something that is illegal. Which is why they will pay the price in court. I still buy cd's, soundtracks, dvds, etc. But I make sure I'm going to like what I get ahead of time. If you realize that the music cd you bought only had two good songs, can you walk into any store and say, "This sucks, I want my money back." I don't think so. Whoever wants to be a sucker, you go do that but don't presume to tell me I'm evil or lack morals just because I do what I feel is right and not what some new law that's been passed tell me is right or wrong. THINK FOR YOURSELVES!!! Like I do, which is why my MOTHER is very proud. I have a brain and I use it.

There are other countries that don't care about this stupidness. They have more important things to focus on. So PC_Tool, if you go to that country where what was illegal in the US is now legal are you going to automatically go, "Well since there law says it's okay, I guess it's okay." Think for yourself and decide how childish you want to get. Create your own set of values, morals and ethics and don't assume that because a person doesn't agree with you on one that they now lack in entirety.

create your own set of values, morals and ethics

lmao..

Moral Relativism. I love it.

Ya know, theft is theft, regardless of laws, interpretations or current social trends.

Morals and ethics don't change with the times or the locales.

if you go to that country where what was illegal in the US is now legal are you going to automatically go, "Well since there law says it's okay, I guess it's okay."

Nope. Wrong is wrong, no matter where you reside.

K, Thanks. Bye!

If you want to pay exorbitant prices for an album that usually lacks quality then you go right ahead and spend your hard earned cash.

I don't. I do the intelligent thing and just don't buy new music, buy used music, or use a legitimate online service.

Ya see, I don't need to make up lame justifications for theft of IP because I just don't do it.

Just because they are pricey does *not* give you the right to it for free. That *is* the *lamest* excuse I've ever heard.

You are not entitled to something just because you 'Don't wanna pay for it.' Take some personal responsibility and deny yourself that which you *chose* not to pay for. Anything less is simply proving your lack of maturity, respect, and self-control.

You're not a freedom fighter. You're just another whiney, entitled brat.

Yeah.

it makes *so* much more sense to go after 100,000 people than it does to go after the few services that supply their illegal demand.

If you realize that the music cd you bought only had two good songs, can you walk into any store and say, "This sucks, I want my money back." I don't think so.

Your fault for being an idiot and *not* knowing what you're buying. There are thousands of stores and online music services that allow you to *LEGALLY* try before you buy. Just because you don't care to do your own damned homework doesn't mean you get it for free, jack.

Think for yourselves? Hell, just try thinking once in a while. Instead of getting on the next P2P program that pops up, ask yourself, 'How can I get what I want legally?' And actually *think* about it for a second.

Download Itunes, for pete's sake, or one of the many others that allow you to try before you buy. You don't have to buy it from those services, but at least you'll know what to look for and what not to look for in the stores.

And, *gasp* you won't have broken any laws.

Amazing, eh?

Moral Relativism. I love it.
So do I ;)

theft is theft
and 1=1, and 2+2=4...because they are defined that way. Of course theft is theft. I am me. The questions are, what is theft, and is it necessarily always "wrong".

Morals and ethics don't change with the times or the locales
If that were the case we would still have slavery, women still wouldn't be allowed to vote, putting people in stocks and whipping would still be an acceptable form of punishment, and cutting off a theif's hand would be a legal sentencing the world round.

The questions are, what is theft, and is it necessarily always "wrong".


1.) Theft = Taking that which does not belong to you without permission of the owner.

2.) Yes.

Salvery was always wrong. Women should always have been allowed to vote, the Nazi's were always evil.

Socially Acceptable!=moral or ethical.

You are mistaking social norms for morality. They are *not* the same.

Theft = Taking that which does not belong to you without permission of the owner.
What if it has no owner, could it be considered stealing from the world?

Slavery was always wrong. Women should always have been allowed to vote, the Nazi's were always evil.
Socially Acceptable!=moral or ethical.
You are mistaking social norms for morality. They are *not* the same.

Perhaps charging for ideas will be seen as wrong, and ownership of ideas will be seen as impossible nonsense 50-100 years in the future.
And therefore, downloading music will not be considered theft, and never will have been theft.

"You are not able to download the music you want legally, but can you buy it in a store online or otherwise?"

First, that is complete bs!! I had an album that I wanted to buy. When I searched online at several different stores including ones overseas, I learned the album was no longer in print!! And we searched for several days to find it.
If I can't find the song I want, I'm going to get it by whatever means necessary. Call me a thief because I want a freakin song!!! Give me a break. I'm not going to miss out on quality music because the big record companies, along with the radio stations don't feel that song is good enough to put out.
Second, when I bought albums from artists what did I get? Two songs I liked, the rest crap for $20!!! ANYONE who feels they want to waste 20 bucks to get two good songs, feel free. I on the other have common sense. If a person downloads a whole album, then they are a thief and should be made to pay for the album. The exact price, not $150,000 for an album.
As far as Limewire being sued they do deserve it. Because they want people to pay to download illegally. I didn't pay for it. I would have if it would have been legal, but as such in the eyes of the law I'm still committing a crime so whether or not I pay for Limewire is irrelevant and I pity anyone silly enough to buy it thinking it offsets what you're doing.
Make albums and play music on the radio that I want to hear and I'll buy albums. The only thing I still buy is soundtracks, because at least if you see a movie you know most of the songs you're going to get.
As far as stealing goes, I have neighbors who have stolen at least thirty books I ordered over the years, video games, and a hard drive for my laptop. Does it anger me? Definitely!! But I wouldn't want them to go to jail or pay $150,000 for what was stolen. I would make them pay the exact amount of what was stolen, then we go our separate ways.
Hard to find songs can be found on P2P networks such as Limewire. So I'll stick with what I do. If big companies focused more on quality of music, instead of making a buck then we wouldn't be in this situation. They continually ram the same music down our throats hoping repetition will transform to enjoyment and if the masses want to be duped that's their business.
These companies and RIAA are mad just because P2P places put the power over what we hear back into the hands that it belongs. The PEOPLE!! Nothing more nothing less. Without power and control they can't make even more money. BOO-HOO, poor them!!
The money isn't even going to the artist. So who am supposed to feel bad for? Multi-million dollar companies? Get some brains and think. Don't let big companies dictate to you what's right and wrong. Apply your own commen sense and judgement.

Who can argue with logic like that?

Try reading the article... or you could even scan it. "The labels are seeking damages, including $150,000 per occurrence of an illegally traded file." They are suing Limewire for lost revenue, not the file sharer in this case.

Using your logic, people with obscure musical taste are entitled to illegally download music and popular music fans are not because in your eyes they are getting more for their money. I see that your common sense is hard at work. If you don't want the whole album then download the songs you want... legally. For that matter you could continue to break copyright laws, but please stop trying to justify it, just do it.

The RIAA is "mad" because they view this as lost revenue and for obvious reasons an illegitimate business. The power to hear what you want has not changed, the ability to acquire it for free has. Stop acting as if you are entitled to the music and the labels are hindering you in some way.

There is a slight problem with your analogy. You stated it is okay for you to steal because you can not find what it is you want though legal means. So... does this mean I can steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre since I can not find it elsewhere through legal means?

you can buy reproductions of the mona lisa. its not like when you download you are getting the master recording.

If it's not available, one need only ask the copyright owner to re-release.

By downloading it, or posting it for download, one tramples over *their* rights to control the distribution of *their* creations.

You can by reproductions of music, just as you can the Mona Lisa. Reproducing the Mona Lisa for rdistribution without license, however, carries with it much the same penalties of distributing music without the copyright holder's permission.

(Aside: Mona Lisa *should* be public domain by now. The original should be under lock and key, but copies, derivatives, and such should be in the public domain. There *does* need to be a firmer time limit on these things. (Like 20-30 years, or upon the death of the copyright holder))

No, all their descendants must be able to mooch off society for use of their ancestors creation.

I demand royalties for the wheel.

lmao...

And Fire!

Nah, that was my great, great, great, great, ... great, great, great, ... great, great, great, ... great, great, great, ... great grandfather's uncle, his decendants should get the royalties for that ;)

Firstly id like to point oyut that u have to buy limewire pro and its avalible in alota stores such as pcworld so i dont think it should pay alota money and companys dont like the f ackt that ppl can download it at tehre own will and bearshare u can buy to it is a registard company end off

...and your point is?

You're telling me you managed to understand his complete lack of grammar and poor spelling to find out he didn't have a point?

That money spent on limewire would have been much better applied to English classes.

Yet more proof of how the internet and illegal downloading can harm your brain and impact the ability to type clearly. ;-)

~dnc

I just assumed he didn't have one when I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say.

I don't usually post on these things but I feel pretty strong about this whole issue because I'm an avid music collector - in mp3 format.

There's a couple of points that I see in this

Downloading mp3's using Limewire is illegal and an infringement of copywrite - full stop. Those of us that do it can justify it any way we want but that won't change.

Personally, I use Limewire because I can't access the music I want any other way. I live in Asia and I've tried to join legal sites and pay for the music I download and guess what - I get a "sorry this service is not available outside the US" so my question is why the hell shouldn't I use Limewire or equivalent to access the songs I want? The RIAA isn't serving me so I found someone who would. Build a business model on that RIAA - oh someone got there before you - Adam Smith - Supply and Demand. Oh no - surely that's the basis of Capitalism? Surely not the business model USA is trying to ram down the throats of everybody in the world? I think it is.

As for Limewire, as far as I can make out, their business model is built on providing a better piece of software so that people can use it it safely for whatever purpose they choose - legal or otherwise. The fact that people use it for illegal purposes is irrelevant. Perhaps we should sue Microsoft for selling software which is used by the Mafia to do their accounts?

It's time for the RIAA to get in line and revise their business model to serve the public - not rape them and the artists they purport to serve.

The problem with that is that LimeWire does not own the content they're providing to you. They're doing it illegally (as you pointed out). Furthermore, lack of availability does not justify getting something however you can. If you can't buy a gun, you can't legally go on the street and get one just because there was no way you could get one any other way. If you can't legally obtain the DVD of the week just released, that doesn't mean you can import it illegally. Likewise, if you can't legally access the music you want, that doesn't give you the right to download it illegally.

You are not able to download the music you want legally, but can you buy it in a store online or otherwise?

"As for Limewire, as far as I can make out, their business model is built on providing a better piece of software so that people can use it it safely for whatever purpose they choose - legal or otherwise. The fact that people use it for illegal purposes is irrelevant. Perhaps we should sue Microsoft for selling software which is used by the Mafia to do their accounts?"

Don't be ridiculous... If Limewire was making a profit in a legitimate manner they could and would filter the files they provide access to as to not risk their entire business. If Microsoft's accounting software had an extortion and money laundering menu, they would probably get sued.

It does have a filter as of version 4.12.x
It's just they give you the option to turn it off...

"Downloading mp3's using Limewire is illegal and an infringement of copywrite - full stop."

Well maybe in the US but not everywhere.
Not in Canada anyway.

Ooh! 'Leet' Spelling, *and* anti-semetism.

You're an idiot. (But that's just my opinion)

And you're both racist pigs. :)

White hood a bit too tight there for ya?

This conversation is unbelievable. Any attempt to justify Limewire making a profit from illegally traded music is ignorant. There is absolutely no logic in blaming greedy executives.

I agree, Limewire itself is just as bad as the RIAA, exploiting open source, copyrighted songs, and people for FINANCIAL GAIN.

"The labels are seeking damages, including $150,000 per occurrence of an illegally traded file."

If that doesn't scream greed, what does? Does the artist who worked on the song, and fellow musicans who performed on the track, all get a cut of that like they should?

Doubt it :)

RIAA is on;y doing what Congress is letting them do. The property rights of millions of songs are no longer owned by the original songwriters. Nickel and dime publishing companies (i.e. Rhino, SOny, EMI) buy the rights to the songs ten to twenty years after old songs are originally recorded. These are the companies that RIAA is really protecting. The companies republish the songs overseas on cheap quality CDs, and send them back to US. The original artist and the songwriter do not received any royalities for these re-recordings. This is pure profit for these companies.

People listen to classic rock everyday on the radio and those artists don't get zip for royalities but thoses publishing companies that RIAA supports do. If these publishing companies are getting royalities of 2-3 cents each time one of their songs are played and 4-5 dollars each time as CD is sold. We should be abled to download a song for no more than 10 cents each and a dollar per single sided CD (128 kbps). This should make the publishing companies happy. The 99 cents per song is greedy.

p.s. no one is complaining that HDTV signals to the plamsa and LCD are copyrighted and no one can record them in HD.

If publishin

"p.s. no one is complaining that HDTV signals to the plamsa and LCD are copyrighted and no one can record them in HD."

Actually the studios are, please look up the "broadcast flag". Soon OTA will suffer from these same arguments until people get their heads out of their tails and do something about this!

Wow, this forum needs to be examined again, Oswald. It's profanity galore. Well--goes to show you who the squeaky wheel is in this country--the babies who don't get their way.

Again, the RIAA are only the folks that bring these things to light, but why is everyone here blaming them? Are the judges brainwashed using RIAA mind control technology (RIAAMCT) or something?

Will one person in this forum tell me why the judges are any less guilty in these "crimes against humanity" (sigh) than the RIAA? Why aren't you guys saying "$#%# the judges"? The term "checks and balances" is greek to most of the fools in the media, but we can be the better people. Outsmart CNN/Fox News/MSNBC for a change, do your own research.

Sure, the RIAA can be Rich, Infamous, Activist Anal-heads, but that's why they must prove their side in this "check/balance" that is a.k.a. court.

*cough*

The checks and balances exist in criminal and federal courts.

They do not apply to the civil courts, where the RIAA plys most of their cases.

I know that is *not* the case here, but just wanted to htrow that out there.

But you can appeal on the basis that a law is unconstitutional. This hasn't been done yet, because the RIAA is afraid to test this in court.

You do have a point there.

You know what...leave them alone...music should be free...if we want to go buy a cd we will...most of us have and then rip it so we can share what we like. And really are your pocket book hurting so much that you need to stomp on the very people who made you what you are. God music mogels GROW UP!

Your comment has nothing to do with Limewire profiting from illegal file sharing.

Music will never be free and the condition of the music industry's pocket book is irrelevant.

one thing stop being so F'ing geedy
Profit's profit's profit's

This has always been a touchy subject, and I always try to avoid getting into it but maybe my thoughts will allow others to see another side, not neccessarily the other side but just another.

I am against piracy. I grew up poor and basically still am, but I've always purchased my cds and dvds. I have over 500 cds and over 800 dvds. I worked since I was 5 years old, and "legally" since I was 11.

I'm an artist, I draw, ink, paint, digitally and old school. I work 50+ hours a week so haven't had time to pursue enough time YET to make money off it. But when I do, I would hope that however I decided to distribute my goods, that the people on the other end will respect it. Not decided to take what they want ignoring any kind of binding contracts I have printed somewhere. That's what it's all about.

Big company, little company, 5000 employees, 5 guys in a garage, it should not matter who has what kind of money or making what kind of profit. If a source wants to release a free track to be distro'd on a p2p then that's how they wanted, if someone else didn't and someone else decides they have the right to break contracts and pirate, well it's not right.

When CDs and DVDs first came out...first meaning about 1-6 months, they were pretty cheap and affordable, but there's a segment, a rather large segment of society that feels it's their right to pirate the goods they have in their hands, so they begin the gluttony. Then the music and movie studios have to tack on $5 just to offset the losses...and then the pirates and their supporters blame that on those companies. That's broken logic man, stop stealing and you know it's not going to happen. Same thing with shoplifting and you know it. Someone steals an item and the store will raise by pennies other items in the store to offset and then reset prices.

Plain and simple. Stop pirating. Respect the desires of the artists and producers. If 1000 artists tell you it's ok if you redistribute their goods and another 1000 don't want you to distribute theirs, respect it. You have artists/producers that do and those that don't.

If people don't like it so much and think these certain organizations have too much power, stop fueling the fire. At some point you have to own up and take responsibility. Stop living your life like a "TRUTH" commercial and blaming others for the things you do. Stop chumming up a sea full of sharks, then jumping in and asking "why'd they attack me".

Remember, it's a society. Change is evitable as is evolution, but it can be progressive evolution or morbid mutation. Just because it rains, doesn't mean flowers will grow...you have to de-weed your garden and plant flowers. :)

I agree. To a slightly smaller degree, but I agree.
Artist deserve the money for the stuff, but it's also about whether the company behind the artist's sudden fame are 'forcing' the public to like their product.
A lot of people (though mostly teenagers) are suckers for advertising and radio playage. How do you get on radio? By getting lucky and a record company representative spotting you at a gig.
Then, you only become famous and rich if the record company decides you are the best band to fit their desired demographic at that point in time.

Fame is barely ever because you're actually the best.
You might be 'good', but it's unlikely you're great enough to recieve the amount of publicity that these big record companies are going to give you.

It's when advertising outweighs the merits of the band that peoples judgment on whether the music should be stolen or not gets clouded.

I would expand a bit better, but I've had a couple too many, so this'll have to do for now.

Basic conclusion: the band only deserve people to pay money for an album if they are of a good enough caliber against all the other band out there, including unsigned bands who haven't been found by record companies yet.

It's much too Eutopian, but that is how it 'should' be.

So, in your 500 cd and 800 dvd collection, have you ever lent one to anyone? Have you ever gotten a CD used? Have you ever checked out a book at a library?

To put it bluntly, this argument is bogus. THE RIAA HAS TO CHANGE BUSINESS PRACTICES...PERIOD!

YOU ARE NOT STEALING WHEN YOU FREELY GIVE OUT A SONG! NO COURT OF LAW HAS EVER (EVER) UPHELD THIS BELIEF!

.."if they did the library system in the U.S. would be in serious jeopardy"..

Just because Congress passes a BAD LAW, it DOES NOT mean it is legal until tested in THE SUPREME COURT!

Let the RIAA and Limewire Rot!

YOU ARE NOT STEALING WHEN YOU FREELY GIVE OUT A SONG!

No, but you *are* infringing on the rights of the copyright holder.

The owner of the copyright is the sole holder of the right to distribute or to give consent for distribution.

*YOU* are not.

That has been upheld in court *many* times. It is *exactly* the same as MS going after counterfit OS retailers. They do not have the right to distribute. Niether do you.

They just aren't going after you directly because of scale. But the fact they haven't, does *not* make it legal.

The Copyright Act grants five rights to a copyright owner, which are described in more detail below.

* the right to reproduce the copyrighted work;
* the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work;
* the right to distribute copies of the work to the public;
* the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
* the right to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The rights are not without limit, however, as they are specifically limited by "fair use" and several other specific limitations set forth in the Copyright Act

These rights are *solely* and *explicitly* those of the copyright owner *only* unless consent is given, and your buying the CD does *not* imply consent to distribute.

...and before you scream "FAIR USE",

Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


Notice, it mentions *nothing* about personal use or rights granted for personal use.

Fair use, in fact, does very little for the sake of personal use.

I maintain that the RIAA would get better results by leveraging the power of companies like LimeWire. They're blinded by worries over rights infringement and are missing a golden opportunity to make more money than all of the legal ranglings combined. Fear of change is driving them as well as reluctance to give up a small portion of their control. They can't see that by releasing a small amount of power and profits, they could enlist Limewire users in a marketing model that would ultimately rake in record profits. They've forgotten that they're in the music business, not the copyright policing business. (sigh)

Better be careful or the ADL will scream bloody murder & you'll be forced to make a public apology like Mel Gibson. Or worse, you'll wake up one morning to find your well poisoned.

'The labels are seeking damages, including $150,000 per occurrence of an illegally traded file.'

Isn't that a little greedy?

That's like saying "You stole a bottle of coke! Now you must pay $150,000", because a song costs $0.99 just like a bottle of coke roughly does.

Wouldn't $100 per song be a little fairer?

Sure it is greedy, but the law allows for the high, per ocurrence, dollar amount in instances involving profiting from infringement. You can thank the industry for all it's lobbying efforts to get these remedies built into legislation.

I doubt this case will ever make it to conclusion in court. The folks at Limewire will probably consult their attorneys, take a few depositions, do the discovery thing, freak out at the numbers and settle with the RIAA. Most likely this will mean no more Limewire - at least as it is now known. Game over!

It's interesting Frostwire wasn't prosecuted at the same time. Maybe it could be another case of switching from Kazaa to Kazaa Lite K++ all those years ago.

It's interesting that your the only one to mention frostwire...althought the program still tries to punish those who do not share files, or as they put it are freeloaders, they think that by not offering a "Frostwire Pro" version to buy that they will be free from any prosecution. Surely it will catch up to them in the end. The RIAA doesn't think about the millions that they have made, all they think about is the thousands that they lose out on...I remember when bands made a name for themselves and made money by touring and doing shows...I don't believe it's the musicians who are greedy..well maybe exept for metallica, But the industry wants in all of our pockets!!...But that's just my 2 cents.

Don't forget Diet K

RIAA reminds me of the IRS before there were talks of getting rid of them.

RIAA is too powerful and just money hungry, why should a CD cost $20 - $30

RIAA has sucked big ones for years. I wrote 4 songs that went gold and one platinum from 1978-1982 took them ten years to certify them and send me the hardware. Go figure. LOSERS. Keep file swapping.

I find it very odd and somewhat amusing that most of the negative vitriol here is directed towards the RIAA and nobody mentions the writers, musicians, composers and artists who created the songs which are being STOLEN each time someone "shares" them without paying.

So that means if someone STEALS something from you, and then the police and lawyers get involved and try to punish the THIEVES, we can just unload on the police about how they should spend their time chasing *real* criminals and not waste everyone's time by chasing the people who STOLE FROM YOU.

I'm assuming nobody here is involved in a profession which includes creative or intellectual property.

I am an artist.

Based on YOUR interpretation(and the RIAA), it is illegal to buy and sale USED cds,records,tapes,etc. Also, by all means DON'T go to the public library.

Don't worry, artists are getting paid very well by performing concerts, saling promotional gear, etc. The album is really a launching pad for all the REAL money an artist gets (current estimates are about 2-5 cents / album sold).

Let me put it another way. AOL is CHANGING their business model, it may work, or it may not, but they are going to try. They could have passed a law that bans all sites without a subscription (yes, our congress WOULD pass this), but instead they ADAPTED! THIS IS WHAT THE RIAA IS SCARED TO DO.

Let the RIAA and Limewire rot!

I have worked as a band manager and still do publicity for them periodically. Yes, file swopping does take some royalties from musicians. However, when money is recooped by the RIAA, it is not passed along to compensate artists for lost royalties. It is generally given to the recording labels, and the money stays there. I think that's why most people rant against the RIAA as a group. I would feel differently if the recording labels gave individual artists some form of compensation when these multi-million dollar settlements are reached. The position of the record labels seems to be that individual artists can't prove an actual dollar amount that they've missed out on, so the record label can't know how much they should pay for lost royalties. It's funny how the companies can claim damages, but the artists and songwriters can't.

Honestly I have no sympathy for any writer, musician, composer or artist because they choose to publish with a major label and make executives rich; instead of selling and promoting thier material on thier own/independantly. On top of that we constantly see all these artists waste thier fortunes on drugs, huge houses, alchohol, and give nothing back to the community or thier fans other than another concert for $50+ ticketmaster fees. Get real people, if your an artist then create a one-on-one following with your fans/supporters and ditch the middle-man "big record company" and "RIAA" they do NOTHING for you. I don't see any artists sueing little kids and thier families... probably cause thier still getting plenty rich!

This case has nothing to do with the police. This is a civil case brought by the RIAA.

I agree that artists and writers should be entitled to their royalties. However, I challenge anyone to find a single recording contract that requires artist or writer royalties to be paid based on this type of civil action.

Royalties are paid on sales, after deductions for packaging, promotion, recouping of packaging fees and other costs related to the creative accounting mechanisms. I have never heard of an artist or writer receiving a check through the settlement or penalties related to these suits.

"The labels are seeking damages, including $150,000 per occurrence of an illegally traded file."

Does anybody know where all that money goes?

yeah, the fu**ing war :)

They ask for $150,000 per incident because they know the judges never award the full amount in court.

Man, I am amazed at how many people watch TV and read internet blogs for all of their information. None of you actually look at multiple sources for information? Lawsuits have been this way since they existed--always ask for more than you can get, because Judges can award less, but never can they award more than the amount asked for. No judge on the planet would award $150,000 per song, RIAA knows that.

Ultimately, RIAA does not decide the outcome either, the court system does. So--really, am I the only BN reader who has taken a Government class? I don't mean to imply I'm a know-it-all, but I just find it hard to believe that there are so many people that are unaware as to how the system works. Am I alone here?

Yeah, the money goes to the RIAA and a handfull of already too rich executives who don't have anything else to do with thier time but dream up new ways to fill thier pockets!

interesting, a p2p company survived this long.
I don't like RIAA, but i also think Limewire is in the wrong here, and should have known this was coming. I havn't listened to or downloaded music since napster was first taken down by the band Metallica (a$$holes$) and RIAA. Then there was something to fight for, but when they made it illegal, music lost all Interest for me.

I really don't miss music, in the car, or at home. What bugs me now is that i am forced to listen to it in movies and at eateries.
I think the world would be a better place without it. i know my life is.

The police have real crimes to solve, so the record companies got their own gang of vigilantes get justice by any means necessary. (that means breaking the law) It was the record companies that decided to make everything digital with CD's. And if that wasn’t enough they made it even easier to copy music when they introduced the CD-R (W). Now they are blaming P2P and everyone else for their mistakes. They opened Pandora's Box now they can't close it.

Why not sue the car companies every time their cars are used in an illegal manner such as a robbery or the transportation of drugs???

**** the RIAA (Recording Industry A$$holes Association)

"Why not sue the car companies every time their cars are used in an illegal manner such as a robbery or the transportation of drugs???"

If a person does transport drugs in there car, they are committing an illegal act. But, the car companies didn't and don't make this a selling point of there car. Also, no copyrights are broken. No intellectual property (can we call music intellectual? sounds kinda wrong)was stolen, or misused.

so that is why your argument breaks down, though the gist of what your saying does come across.

**** the riaa!!! shoot them b****es down!!

D i c k head.

W all hate RIAA, long live TORRENTS :)

They're still going after obsolete tech, but then again they also sue dead people. :)

Man I hate RIAA

---
web design uk

Why doesnt limewire just host off the coast of some country that isnt bound by US law, say... africa.... end of story.. nothing will happen.

I really don't know.
That's something that's always puzzled me.
If they make that much money, surely they could just move to a country that doesn't care about filesharing...

"RIAA claims that LimeWire's business model allows it to profit from the piracy trade, and its failure to block copyright content is a sign that the company is actively encouraging its users to pirate music"

Ok so by this rational... all auto makers should be sued cause it is well known that people use cars to transport, sell and trade drugs and they dont block it.

Yes you should buy your music but come on these arguments are desperate loads of crap. Just like cars... Limewire is used for other lawful activities!!!

Hey, the Unites States Congress just passed another law. You can't sue gun makers because a criminal used their products to kill somebody. Auto dealerships don't run criminal background checks on customers, and refuse to sell a deadly weapon, to convicted drunken drivers. Don't blame GM if you get mowed down, by a space cadet in one of their CORVETTES that go 160+ MPH on the street.

On the other hand, it's OK to blame LIMEWIRE because somebody downloaded MP-3 music files with their software.

Make up your damned minds and be consistent about it...

Well it is good to hear that the RIAA members have founf a way to make money of the stuff they have been releasing.

Although I can't side with Limewire it is a pity that the revenues from this will likely never grease the palm of a recording artist.

I understand that LimeWire is out of line and had to of seen this coming. While it is indeed better to see the likes of LimeWire getting shut down instead of individual peers you very well know that any financial gain the RIAA get's out of this WILL go towards attacking individuals.

The RIAA just got that 115mil out of Kazaa which is a shame. The invididuals getting sued and attacked will ONLY get worse as the RIAA continues to build this pool of money.

Yeah, but you know they need that money. They've got to have it to pay an image consultant to help them stop the jokes about suing dead people and grandparents on Social Security. $115 mil ought to be a nice down payment, don't you think?

I have to admit I am glad the RIAA is going after Limewire. The RIAA is correct in this instance, and the Supremes upheld this in the Grokster case. Any company making money off licensed music IS illegal.

I'd rather them perform these lawsuits than against individuals (there is NO personal gain from an individual trading music, and there is NO money made by an individual). Limewire, Grokster, BearShare, etc. are companies that should be put out of business. They are making money off open source software, and from individuals that want to share their music collections (again, the individuals that DO NOT make money).

These folks are a bigger scam than the RIAA - rest in peace bozos!

I think that they were just inviting legal troubles; when they started selling that PRO version of their software. Some artists didn't like the deluge of ad ware and advertising associated with this software. Best to distributre it freely and not try to make any money from it either...

@SnakerDLK
Actually, it was revealed a few days back that some label had removed the DRM from another label's song, and posted it as a ringtone...oh!that label was virgin records...irony,anyone?

Limewire is only widespread because it's so well known. This is due mainly to it's advertising campaign, which in turn brings more users into their ad-based profit model, equating to the cash that attracts the legal hounds and gives them a window of legal attack.

The crafters of the better open-source clients which, by the way, also access the same decentralized and open-source [Gnutella] protocol as Limewire, are motivated more by the challenge of creating good software, and have no cash to draw the flies.

I find it sad that the lost profits of the RIAA's members is due less to filesharing and more to a general reduction in the quality of their offerings, and - more notably - their failure to embrace and effectively utilize the same technology they're hampering to legally and rapidly distribute what few descent titles they're responsible for.

Limewire's loss will merely mean less sources on the networks as the uninformed lose the only client they know. They'll eventually migrate to another... I can only hope we'll also loose their plethora of bad and misnamed files, for a little while.

The RIAA are f**s full stop!

The RIAA is the true thief here. Its time they look in the mirror.

well it finally happened, i wondered how long it would take those greedy jerks to go after them too

Was anybody ever actually stupid enough to buy Limewire Pro? I always thought that being able to obtain Limewire Pro for free using - yes you guessed it - Limewire, was one of the little ironies of the internet.

I found BearShare Pro cracks using BearShare Lite. I think BearShare Lite still works too...

yeah...thats the problem o centralized P2P networks...RIAA has someone to blame for a bit less profit...

(it would be funny if it came out that someone in the RIAA uses some P2P client to download copyrighted material, LOL)

and yes, I cliked that link and that animation was harmless...

The labels are seeking damages, including $150,000 per occurrence of an illegally traded file.

The labels != RIAA folks. Again, just because a sentence contains the letters R, I, A, and A, in that sequence together, does not mean you should BS all over the forum about how evil they are.

RIAA claims that LimeWire's business model allows it to profit from the piracy trade, and its failure to block copyright content is a sign that the company is actively encouraging its users to pirate music. "Defendants not only have known of the infringement, but have promoted and relied upon it to build their business," it said in the complaint.

Is that a false claim? Are you telling me that LimeWare or LLC or whomever, wrote Limewire specifically with legal file sharing in mind? Until the SC overules current law, Limewire is clearly in trouble here. They're doing the same thing Kazaa did, and I doubt the SC is changing its mind so quickley.

Next up, "RIAA sues readers for looking at their news copy, saying it was copyrighted and not meant for publication unless paid for in advance!"

And they wonder why only Apple ipod idiots buy music anymore. Download or rip all your old favorites and be done with it once and for all.

lol, $150k per song eh? Taking a very modest 1 billion songs by now, seeing as how they been around 6 years, that'd be 150 trillion dollars :D

bourgeois : it's a lame flash animation saying "Limewire LOL" with pics of pirates.

As far as the news, I hope that RIAA rots in hell. Thank God (and the developers) that Limewire is open-source, so hopefully forks like FrostWire can keep living even if Limewire becomes Napsterized.

Limewire is not exactly open-source, and RIAA is just doing what they're job is in this case. Now, they are a bunch of hypocritical crooks IMO, but they are not being crooks in this case. Limewire consists of crooks, but worse than that, full of spyware that is full of bugs. Spyware is bad enough, but recent windows updates conflict with the spyware and the spyware writers don't give a sheit. The company behind Limewire also cares nothing about the millions of dollars worth of damage this spyware is causing businesses every year.

You, on the other hand, care little about your spyware infection and the fact that you click on url's without validifying the content is evidence of that.

IMHO...anyone who provides spyware on any version of any of their products need to be banned from the Internet. This has nothing to do with the whole music downloading thing to me. RIAA can be the most evil organization ever, but LimeWire is not any better just because RIAA came after them. Don't justify bad behavior because bad people want rid of them.

swf files can utilise an exploit in the Windows Metafile dll, if you're wondering why I strayed away from the link.

spyware, they removed any spyware packaged with the program over 5 years ago, u must be running a VERY old version.

there is no spyware to speak of in LimeWire that is downloaded from the LimeWire site in regard to windows, and I havent had any issue w/ spyware in the linux one for that matter either ;-p

and yes it is OSS, i could recompile the entire thing if I chose to.

The big 'R' is NOT short on money
Limewire is NOT short on money
The Music artists or recording companies are NOT short on money.

How about all these greedy bas****s just relax, I know its the ultimate sin to download a song you cant find in the stores or is a one hit wonder from who knows when, and rip it to find out the quality is terrible anyways, which might accidentally spawn someone to take initiative to find the damn cd so they get a good copy. Who didnt make any money in that scenario, the big R. Thats why they showed up.

This whole music thing is blown way out of proportion. This isnt about right or wrong or protection, its what loop holes in the laws people can find as a platform to screw other people out of money period. The free music will be on the internet always, it can not be governed and until the laws are changed, their will always be someone to go after to suck money out of.

I don't run it and never have, however I DO deal with the program at least once a week when it trashes somebody's winsocks (after running a windows update from May of this year). It also does have spyware known as top moxie, as well as superlogy in most cases. These are on PCs I did a format reinstall on them myself and they have spyware files in the system32 folder that are modified MINUTES AFTER limewire is installed. The catch is IT downloads spyware, so when you say it is spyware free, that's only a half-truth.

I've run an anti-spyware scan on my pc checking a version of limewire I downloaded the other day, btw, didnt even install it, and it found top moxie.

EDIT: Tried latest one and no spyware (Hmmm...)...still researching...

EDIT 2: Installed it on my dummy XP partition, no spyware still--ah! After setting it up and attempting to "update it", well no updates, but my AVG tells me I have a download trojan. As they'd be in trouble for that way before now if that was related, I will assume it is something else. I'll have to try this again after I can assure my environment isn't being affected by something other than limewire, so I'll respond in more detail when I return.

Needless to say, I can assure you that of the several dozen PCs I get that have or even had limewire at any time, they all had top-moxie, and most of them did have download trojans too come to think of it. I still think it would be nuts if those bas****s actually uploaded download trojans to your PC right after installation, so I am still thinking that was coincidence...

"The big 'R' is NOT short on money
Limewire is NOT short on money
The Music artists or recording companies are NOT short on money."

You assume I think like rijp, and I don't. I said what I said about it. RIAA may have billions more than they should, or maybe they're billions in debt, I don't give a dam. That's irrelevant. The fact is Limewire is illegally operating. So yell at the 9 SC justices--er the 8--who unanimously defined what was legal P2P and what was not legal. Limewire, under current law, is clearly going to lose. The law may be wrong, but you're blaming RIAA when they are only doing their job.

Do you guys think the police who did not agree with Prohibition would be "wrong" to enforce the Prohibition Amendment when it was still enacted? Come on, guys. In this particular case, RIAA is doing what they are supposed to do and the law allows them to do it. Yell at the judges--or maybe that's the whole beef? Can't blame the judges, can you? Perhaps you are wrong in your thinking then? Or are the Supreme Court judges, Conservatives and Liberals alike, dumber than you are? Perhaps you're smarter than they are?

Sorry for the cheapshots, but since nobody here can read people's minds or intentions, maybe the RIAA are greedy bas****s, but perhaps YOU'RE WRONG.

Good riddance if ya ask me. Banquo, I'm not even going to click that link as I have no clue of what it is, and anyone who does click the link--now you know why I use IE and remain virus free and you don't :)

Well I don't use IE, so I can click any link I want without fear. :)

(BTW it's harmless, and even funny.)

ROFL! That's funnier than the link.

1) windows defender or spybot would pick it up immediately if it were bad
2) things aren't bad just because they have a flash extension
3) i haven't had an issue w/ spyware on my windows machine in a very long time, and i click on whatever interests me regardless of the content.

so it's not such a big deal honestly.

http://img.sheezyart.com/art/swf/82/821125.swf

lol...

lmao!

awesome!

If any of you guys are interested in setting up a political party in your country to try and stop people like the RIAA please see http://www.pp-international.net/forum