GAD!, I can't believe that WinMX could have stuck around for sometime longer after reading the Judges decision Here in Los Angeles Cal.
@COME BACK WINMX@

Just when I am able to get back online and try to chat with friends in WinMx I find out they are no longer available. I kept saying to myself wtf?? It really irks me to find that out because I did nothing but chat with friends and if thats wrong then you people have issues (IRAA). What about those of us who only went there only to chat?? We get a kick in the rear because of those whom you say are stealing. Well I've read alot of these comments and I agree with those that are just as mad as I am. How are we supposed to keep in contact with those we've found to be friends and dont have email addresses??

Please Read!...
Decentralized File-sharing Tools Ruled Legal
By Mike Darrah

Streamcast and Grokster have won a major court decision in Los Angeles, s***ing the tides of the on-line P2P legal war. Federal court Judge Stephen Wilson has dismissed much of the studios' claims in their lawsuits against them, stating that Morpheus and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements that took place using their software.

The ruling stated loud and clear that innovating decentralized peer-to-peer Gnutella-like software is perfectly legal, and shouldn't be deemed illegal in the courts. The courts compared the technology with the innovation of the original Sony videocasette recorder (VCR).

Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) stated the case is far from over, but that the case sends a "strong message to the technology community that the court understands the risk to innovation" the case could represent.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) offered no comment, but are of course issuing an appeal to the ruling already.

:)

This sucks. I just got back from vacation to find out that WinMX shut down. I'm not stealing I'm borrowing. if I like it, I'll buy it, if not then I'm glad I didn't waste my money on 14 lousy songs. RIAA has the nerve to do this to every f***ing site and yet their income is increasing every g**d*** year.

Where can I find a new P2P network?

limewire is now the place to go. happy d/l. enjoy it while you can

BearShare Pro (non-adware version of BearShare, which, to go above all paradoxes, can be found on BearShare itself), and Ares, a simple and clean P2P network that I've used for a long time.

It was good while it lasted.i got so many tracks iv wanted for sucha long time that i couldnt find anywhere or even get specially ordered, and alot of SERIOUS films that i would probly NEVER have got to see without mx.nothing lasts forever...at least now i will have time to do other stuff (after all thers alot more to life)...i was totally addicted.

What is the point in the s***ty RIAA now i can't get quality music. Who ever did this deserves a kick in!

of course its illegal and wrong and blah blah blah... great. but why is it such a problem now? because suddenly they can track people down. long before the wonderful world of the internet, people were copying and stealing music en masse. record to tape, tape to tape and radio to tape all are forms of stealing and copying, but since the record companies couldn't track people down with as much ease as they can today, they didn't bother. i think a large part of the reason sites like winmx are not forced to be shut down outright is because it's a wonderful opportunity to take a bite out of that long existant community of music copying/stealing. the whole "we'll give you time to stop on your own" bit is a nice little farce. solving the problem would be too easy, now wouldn't it? maybe those stealing deserve it; but maybe the companies and artists have gotten too big for their own good as well. it's not a justification, just a point. i also think that it's not actually the fact that people can't steal that is upsetting, it's that the punishment really doesnt seem to fit the crime. $750 to $150,000 per song? please. is that really what a song goes for these days? used to be that the phrase "for a song" meant it was next to nothing in worth. my how times have changed...

Conclusion: If you really like what you're playing, hearing, or watching; buy it later. For me, this can be rare, but I feel good helping the creator of my media.
Many people don't like to buy albums for the sake of one good song. I recommend iTunes or similar $.99 song system even for little donations like that.
I don't mind stealing, I'm just going by some morality issues.

Wowwwwwwwwww, Just tried to log on to Winmx, had no idea that Winmx had died...........thats too bad.........What next??

hey , win mx provided me with a way to find a lot of old music that you can't buy any more. somebody out there usually had what i was searching for. not many cd stores do. some independent stores will order you albums if they are in print or find you a used one. a lot of old albums were never put on cd's . i still like my old vinyl lp's also. lets all share them.

I agree. I like to take my favorite old songs from the last several decades and make compilation CDs for in the car or for parties and such. Most of the songs I download cannot be found anywhere, or they are one hit wonders that I can't justify spending money on their full release. I also download new songs to sample and if I like them, I buy the CD. I collect CDs, but I'm tired of spending all of my money on a CD with only a few good songs. I literally have purchased over 1,000 CDs and as costs rise, I make my purchases more carefully. I hope this patch works because I really miss Win MX.

You can still use win mx. You just have to download and install a patch to allow for primary connections. Go here for the fix: http://www.vladd44.com/mx/peercaches.php
And Happy Downloading :)

Thanks! It's working again. I guess it will just take some time for more people to find out how to get it back and repopulate it!

How can patent rights expire, and music copyrights never do? Should there be a time limit on copyrights? Will the RIAA hire agents to stalk neighborhoods listening for garage bands playing copyrighted material? Can I sing in my car to copyrighted material that I don’t own, without infringing in some fashion on the “rights” of the RIAA? Since I don’t “own” the vast majority of music played over the radio waves, should my stereo be illegal? The free stations are, in effect, sharing files. If I subscribe to a satellite radio service, and pay them money, can I record what they play? I would be paying them to listen to copyrighted material.
Where does this nonsense end?

"Where does this nonsense end?"

With an ounce of common sense.

Arakiel, I notice you've been on somewhat of a campaign against WinMX and its users. I would like to point out however, that downloading a copy of a file from a P2P network isn't actually stealing as no-one has been deprived of their property (physical or intellectual). It is however, a breach of copyright law and as such is illegal, although I find it hard to see the record companies and artists as victims of this crime. Instead of spending millions on legal action and suchlike, I don't see why the record companies don't embrace the internet and try and find a solution that everyone can be happy with.

Actually I have nothing against WinMX or it's users when downloading legal files. My beef is with all you retards who try and squirm your way out of being called thieves. And make no mistake, copyright violations of this sort ARE theft, you only have to look back to kindergarten to realize it. Did you take something without paying for it? Were you supposed to pay for it? Then you STOLE it, stealing is theft.
You can try to twist words, squirm, and bring up bogus interpretations of the law to try and make yourself out to be anything but a common thief but in the end, your still nothing but a 2bit criminal.

Or is that a 128kbit criminal?

Whereas I believe it to be reprehensible to share a movie or song before it is out and "on sale", I feel that the idea of songs being owned and property after they have been strewn over the airwaves is also out of date. Created artwork at some point must enter the public domain. Whom does the tourist photographer have to pay? Does everyone using a pryramid symbol send a check off to the Eqyptian government? Why not? The idea that music can be treated as a property is antequated and needs to be reexamined in light of technology. It began with tapes and has progressed.

I'm devastated to find Winmx offline, I'v e used it for years. PLEASE RELOCATE OUT OF THE US! It stinks that we can't share music anymore and chat to the lovely people we are sharing with. This will NOT increase actual sales. Right now I feel mad enough to never buy a CD ever again!

The moron that ran WinMX caved in like a wet deck of cards. The fool could have fought for a little while! There was a lot more to WinMX that illegal files. Thanks for nothing, you jerk! The RIAA needs to understand one thing, the only way to stop file sharing is to shut off the internet. Illegal or not, files sharing will not stop. Get used to it.

Well I've read everyones points, however I have come to my own conclusion..... I JUST DON'T GIVE A !@#$.

I'm gonna copy music,movies,games, and what ever else I can copy just because I can. And the fact is I'm not taking to much money from them because I still see MTV Cribs and it certainly doesnt look like I'm hurting their profits.

Further more even if the price was just $5.00 a CD I would still download because its more convient for me and I get the songs I want. I personnally download more movies than music so Winmx shutting down really pisses me off!

Props to you for having the balls to stand up and admit it.

Arakiel is obviously rich enough to buy thousands of C D's. So am I. No poor excuse here. His or her staunch support of big business is why he\she will willingly pay four bucks a gallon, not notice the body count of dead Americans in Iraq, not notice FEMA’s failure, jump at the opportunity to pay double the price of heating this winter, and stand so firmly on this insignificant issue when looking at the big picture. Call me a liberal if that makes you feel good, just don’t ever try to take away my guns, and I wish there were public executions. Maybe Arakiel would volunteer to pull the release on people who file share. What a non-issue all this is. If you really want to see abuse of profit, look at the National Debt. Ain’t nobody poor in the RIAA.

I'm rich?...wow...what an amazing thing. In fact I am not rich enough to buy whatever CDs I want. However I also realize i'm not entitled to them just because I can't afford them.

As for your gallon of gas claim, in fact it pisses me off having to pay $4 a gallon, however that doesn't mean I go out and steal my gas and justify it due to the oil companies price gouging...do you?

Not sure where the hell your going with the rest of your attacks or WTF they have to do with file sharing, unless your trying to create some absurd coralation between the war in Iraq and theft of IP...which I would find disgusting.

"Ain't nobody poor in the RIAA"...so, so what? This gives people the right to steal their products? That lame a** excuse has been tried a dozen times or more in this thread and it never stands up to scrutiny anymore then the "I'm poor so I should get it free" excuse.

If you dont like the RIAA or the music they produce or the prices they charge, thats fine. Dont buy their stuff...thats great, even commendable...but the minute you go and steal what you refused to pay for you lose all credibility. You go from commendable to common criminal.

Maybe the model of support of big business that is our government today will make it impossible for the little man to afford any luxury, such as over priced cd’s. I feel we are in Iraq to gain oil for a big business. I won’t steal anything that is not needed for life, and while I may sometimes feel music can enhance life, the RIAA has proven there is no artistic value to their form of music, so it is not needed. I purchased many tapes and LP’s that I can’t find anymore. Can I download those, and who is to prove I didn’t purchase those at one point? Innocent until proven guilty is the way it was, but the attack on our constitution, in support of gathering data on every individual in this country, for databases that make profit easier, may have reversed that. I look at this issue as a very small part of what is turning my Country to S***. It is a symptom of the cancer.
Iraq for oil company, Saudi prince, and Halliburton profit. We suffer and die.
FEMA appointments for payback of political debt and profit. We suffer and die.
Higher price on needed energy. We suffer, and some die.
RIAA (Sony) squeezing us all. The Music suffers and dies.
Profit motivation makes us suffer and die, so why not turn us into criminals also?

woohoo, consipracy theories FTW!

Arakiel has a good point, and granted, whilst I steal much property, I usually buy the game/music if I truly enjoy it to benefit the creator. And no one knows how to emulate a track anymore.

The court's ruling was ludicrous. Can the phone company be held liable because people can use the phone to commit crimes? We have the finest government MONEY CAN BUY!!!

so heres the real question...what would the RIAA have done about people copying cassettes or burning CD's and giving them out to friends? this is absolutely positively fruitless. no matter what the RIAA has to say about it, theres nothing thats going to stop people from sharing music wether it be via internet or whatever other means people use to do so.

Wow you have some great logic here,

...can't stop it so why even try, let's just make theft legal and everything will be fine.

typical, self centered, thinking.

explain how thats self-centered cause I dont see it. where does anyone say lets make it legal? do you just put down the first think that pops in your mind. and how is it typical?

Of course you don't understand, you need to have passed reading comprehension to get even the most basic ideas past..."me want, me take" and you apparently failed that class.

Try to understand, if you dont like the RIAA thats fine, dont buy their s***. But that is not an excuse for stealing it. The poster above is commenting on the fact that the RIAA cannot stop file sharing, which is probably true. However what is the RIAA to do, just ignore the fact that people are stealing their product? In effect making in quasi-legal, thats utter bulls*** and if you had an ounce of common sense in your self centered body you would understand why.

first, i never said i did not understand what you said; I wanted you to explain. Second, me want me take is more along the lines of looting like say, LA. Third your egotistical and im self-centered for asking a question? Where The @#$% do u come up with this crap that everone who isnt on your side is self-centered? And you also sound like you went to community college so stop trying so hard.

You want me to explain but you understand...well thanks for wasting my time nutjob. And no "me want me take" applies here as well, you want the song so you take it and feel justified in doing so, looting doesn't enter into it. Finally, who ever said I have "side"? The only "side" I might be on is the one against seeing people spout all sorts of bulls*** to justify theft. As for your community college argument, um yea whatever, you can't even comprehend right from wrong or simple explanations but yet you attack MY education level..gg.

Good job at avoiding the central argument though, stealing is wrong. Ignoring it and hoping it will go away will not work, so a company takes a stand against theft of it's property and you ****tards lambast them for it, and anyone who disagrees with you and shoves it in your face that your nothing but petty theives too wrapped up in themselves to think of anyone else. After all, you deserve the music for free don't you...or at least you all think you do.

I will steal music until the day they pry my cold dead hands from my computer. Life is too short to play by the rules. The best thing...they will never be able to stop it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least you don't have any lame a** justifications

Out of good faith; buy it IF you want to help the creator.

Arakiel, give it up. People are going to download things "il"ligally, even if you and the government tell them not to.

Yes let's all just stick our heads in the sand and give up...good idea. That attitude is sure to get you far in life.

File sharing is going to happen if it is by P2P, email, FTP or sending a CD to my friend. Might as well leave these sights alone.

COMMIES!!

Personally, the RIAA are a bunch a idiots. They are going after the little people because they say that sharing files is causing the company and the artists record sales. People just want to listen to music while online. If it weren't for CD burners and MP3 Players there would be no way for most of those poeple who download the music, to get said music off of their damn computers. And I don't know about you, but I'm damn sure not willing to carry this heavy ****ing contraption out to my car, JUST so I can hear a bunch of music that I stole, because...yes, it IS now officially stealing. And I'm sure that a person doesn't want to sit at their computer EVERY time they want to listen to a certain song. Ergo, without the CD Burners and the MP3 Players they would HAVE to save up a few pennies so that their broke A**es could buy the CD to listen to that song WHENEVER they wanted. THUS, cutting down the number of CD's that get duplicated, and burned. Most people listen to music in their cars and, as I recall the ONLY way to do that without the CD Burners, and MP3 Players is either the old fashioned way(listen to the radio), or buy the Damn CD(BEFORE you put that artist you love soo much out of business!) I'll bet the amount of money that companies like SONY and Memorex have made on Cd-R's (Just from the people who buy them SOLELY to burn music) is 10x's the amount they say they're losing because of us.

!!Winmx Rocks!!! who will be the next network

Bullying technology to suit your desires is fruitless and doomed to fail. RIAA is attempting to mold technology to suit them when the particular technology they are trying to subvert was designed to circumvent them. Sharing of information, though deemed illegal in many cases, is essential to a successful society. The proper response is to encourage morality and find a better way to earn the profits deemed necessary. Also, removing the access to technology, through bullying, prevents people from learning about new things that they want. A true fan will seek out products and purchase when available. Keep in mind that word of mouth is the best advertising as well. The anime industry has known this for years. Fan sub and dub anime increases exposure and ulitimately profits. The bully only hurts themselves in the long run. Unfortunately they hurt others in the short run.

I think its funny how we as a society are expected to just abide by what people with power(more money) say. True were not supposed to share our Property with other people because they somehow got away with passing that law, but we are the people that let that law get signed in. So it is now our responsibility to change that law and at the same time make a new one that is in everyone's best interest.

Yea it's funny how people get upset when you steal their stuff...wonder how that ever became illegal.

How is it stealing when you buy it for your OWN PERSONAL USE!

How did you buy it if you took it off a P2P server...which in case you missed it, is what this ENTIRE ****ING THREAD IS ABOUT.

im not talking about ripping it im talking about posting the cd on a p2p if its yours. In this country you should be able to do as you please with your OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY! That's what this is about, someone else telling you what you can do with your property.

You own the CD moron, not the copyrighted song. There is a differnce between material possesion and intellectual property. It's illegal to post the song up because the person on the other end of the download didn't pay for the rights to it.

Stupid, you overlooked the fact that we can in fact make copies under that same law. For our ownt personal use we have the right to copy cds dvds and vhs, so if i want to put a copy on the web thats my business and you cant stop anyone from doing that. as far as the person on the other end im giving him permission to d/l from me. and of "they didnt pay for the rights to it" what about those people who do pay for the service? Like napster,or the people who paid for winmx like myself, do they pay for each song,no.Its a money game and the riaa love to see people like you arguing for there side!

That has to be one of the most retarded arguments yet.
First, giving you the right to make personal copies IN NO WAY includes the right to share those copies, which is what you are doing when you put them on P2P...or do you think people just put files up to show off and dont expect people to download? If you put it up under the assumption they will download you are distributing copyrighted works without permission...a crime.
Second, paying WinMX is NOT paying the holder of the copyright, in this case the RIAA member. That argument is so ****ed up I can't believe you even spouted it.

Arakiel wins. FATALITY.

Where do you stand on this Beast?

I agree on Arakiel's standing on keeping our economy functional and moral, but I also have a lean into this stealing business meself. I do download a lot, but I will go and buy a product later if I really like it and want to help who made it. I just got a Battlefield 2 ISO to play it fully, but when I get the chance I'll pay the $50 since it's great stuff. (Dunno when that is, but it will happen.) Music works similarly, and it feels good to emulate an album myself and look at the album art (esp. NIN, clever stuff). To simplify, I borrow. A lot. If it's good, it gets the payment.

Personally I don't see what the problem is with file sharing, its no different to buying a cd then giving it to a someone else as a present.

I also don't see what right anyone one has to control what you do with your music once it's been bought and paid for. Once it's your property you should be able to do what you like with it, if that means sharing it with friends whether you know them or not well so be it.
What a greedy world we live in if you can't share something as simple as a song.

What are you retarded? You give someone a CD and you give up all rights to it when you do so. Share a file with someone and your retaining a copy for yourself instead of giving up the rights to it. Ergo you just gave away a copy without the owner recieving any compensation for it.

F*#K the RIAA. Win MX was one of my favorate sites to download from. it was spyware and adware free. i dont know about any of you but i cant afford to pay 15 to 20 bucks a cd just to get one or two songs i like. What ever happened to making music for the fans, not for the profit?

You cant afford to pay for it, so that makes it ok to steal it...

Too bad we cant apply that logic to automobiles. I can't afford a BMW, so I should be able to just take it right?

So let me ask you then...have you ever copied a tape a vhs or even a CD for a friend or loved one or had someone copy something for you? if you say no then we all know you're completely full of crap and if you say yes then you admit to being just as responsible as everyone else is so why post a negative comment?

No I haven't. Unlike most of the people on this thread I actually respect other peoples property. Whether you care to believe it or not I frankly don't give a s***, the opinion of me from a petty thief matters very little to me.

The issue here is not the free downloading sites, if you truly think about it. The problem is most people can't afford to pay the $15-$30 for a CD that they'll only like one song from. I know I sure as hell can't afford it. The only way to get anything solved would be to first work on a way to lower the prices of the albums we would want to purchase, and THEN we would have to do a bit of sacrificing too. If this is intended to be stopped, both ends have to give up at least SOMETHING. That means us too.

What needs to happen is we need to make a petition, or SOMETHING (not on the internet, those never work) to let the recording companies know that if they want us to stop downloading, we want to have at least SOMEWHAT of a price drop. We have to make the first move to sacrifice.

"Most people" appear to be willing to pay 15 bucks for a CD, that's one of the reasons the price stays at that point. The fact that some folks on a bunch of forums complain about high prices does not establish what "most people" do. Those who actively participate in internet forums represents a small, and somewhat unique, subset of "most people". When enough people agree with you that the prices are too high, THEN perhaps they will lower their price. The patience and sacrificing level of a lot of folks will make that difficult to bear out, but it doesn't relieve the consumer of the responsibility of looking out for their own best interest in best determining how to spend their money.

The best "petition" you have is where you spend or don't spend your money. Supply, demand; it's REAL simple. You are on the demand side of that equation. If the price isn't a value to you, don't buy. But since other people ARE willing to buy at 15 bucks or more a pop, when they don't have to, the labels see there is a market for that price. People want to solve it the "easy" way, even if the easy way is wrong, like illegally downloading music. Some things in life are hard, but once accomplished, they are that much more worthwhile.

So you can't buy a whole album for 15-17 bucks? iTunes and other services, 99 cents a song, some whole albums 9.99. The idea of getting a higher paying job may also assist in that endeavor. I sought out reasonably lucrative employment and promotions because I like to buy stuff. If I like to buy stuff, it's my responsibility to make myself be able to afford the thing I really want or need. No business is responsible for that, just me.

Why should we have to pay 15-20 dollars a cd? If we are comfortable with the way our lives are going why should we have to change?

Because the company decided thats what they should charge for it. Correct pricing or not doesn't enter into it, they have the right to charge whatever they want for their product. If people want it they pay the price and get it, if they don't want to pay and take it by other means, thats stealing. The more you try and squirm out of it the more you look like a fool.

I recommend iTunes or that whole $.99 song thing, it's nice because the tracks are actually emulated correctly and you feel good about getting the individual songs legally. In which case I can help Rammstein.

Just so you know RIAA, I paid 24.00 for a 2 year subscription to WinMx, so where is the problem with that?
Where is my reimbursement from YOU for shutting down something that I paid for?

They didn't shut it down, WinMX decided to shut themselves down rather than fight. RIAA wasn't asking ANYONE to shut down, they were just saying don't illegally distribute the music of our artists or then they would seek to shut them down. WinMX had a choice, comply, fight, or shut down.

Your claim is with WinMX.

Who's cheating who?Elvis Presley and Col.Tom Parker set up a music publishing Co.Now,if you were a song writer you could not get Elvis Presley to record one of your songs unless he and his manager received a whack of the royalties.So,Col. Parkers estate and Elvis Presley's estate receive royalties on songs they had no part in composing!It's also well known that certain African American artists were cheated out of their song royalties by crooked record company bosses.Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers is just one example of a group that were cheated,there are many more,so,who's cheating who?

Red herring argument.

I mostly used WinMX to download eps of shows (for example, I missed one of the new Family Guy episodes so I downloaded it). Can anyone suggest a good replacement for videos?
Also, is that even illegal, really, since it's like my friend gave me a tape of it? (it's certainly not DVD quality, and usually has the Fox logo or similar in the corner)

Ive deleted my winmx too and cant get it back.

TO sum up everything in one general sentence => "if cds didn't cost an arm and a leg to buy, then there wouldn't be a need to download".. ALL these people, artist, record labels, RIAA, etc are contradicting themselves, they tell u not to download music because it's bad for the artist but mean while they keep increasing the prices of cds..

TO sum up your argument further.. "I can't afford it so that makes it ok for me to steal it"

oh and btw...your wrong.

For anyone who still doesn't know, WinMX is up and running again. A patch has been created, download it here.
http://www.vladd44.com/p...topic.php?p=26688#26688

The bottom line is this the right-wing big business loving surpeme court has just inflicted terrible and certainly irreversible damamge to our rights as citizens. How can they pass ruling on what someone might do with potential software. What if i bought and used microsofts street& trips to plan bank robberies. This is certainly not what microsoft had in mind, but you dont see them taking it off the self. As I have stated before the eggheads will win this because we have all day to find loop holes and back doors to everything on the web.

The bottom line is this the left-wing tree hugging commies think they are entitled to whatever they want without having to pay compensation for it.

The only way to fight the big giants is to refuse to buy their product. We need to boycott RIAA and Sony for an extended period of time to get them to realize the difference to their wallet. Until we kick their wallet up their butts will they realize we will not take their interference.

Well I am sorry WinMX is shut down, the truth is that people were SHARING and that isn't illegal now is it? And it was fun to meet people that share the same love for music.

Yes in fact, it IS illegal.

It's good to see RIAA making some headway.

Your a dildo

While your argument is compelling, I have it on good authority (reality) that your wrong. Thanks for playing, try again later.

The RIAA will never stop people from getting music. They are just a bunch of pathetic loosers. They want you and I to believe that the artist is getting ripped off. Which makes me like to ask the so called RIAA how come the show pimp my crib shows these artist with, four or five vehicles worth 30,000+ dollars and a house thats worth half to a million dollars. I would be lucky in my life time to own one car worth 30 grand and a house that expensive give me a break. The RIAA have got to stop telling lies about this. Show me the evidence where some artist is struggling, show me an artist thats a bum on the street. They cant because its all lies. They got to keep the cash cow because that is what it is. New Flash RIAA just try to bring your legal crack down on me in my Country there are no copy write laws so nln you.

I agree, these artist are trying there best to stop technology,if they were to make better music we would not have to share there pathetic cd's. Sometimes you spend as much as $19 on a cd and you get maybe 2 tracks that are even worth listening too.

Ahh yes, the old "it's a crappy product so lets steal it" argument...very compelling.

like you've never copied anything for someone or had something copied for you...give me a break !!!

No I havent. Got a problem with that dips***?

If there is only one song you like on a cd, buying the entire thing would be a wast of money. When you buy a song from iTunes it is not in the mp3 format, its mp4 or somthing. That format only alows you to listen, edit, and burn the song using the iTunes program. That, in my opinion is highly restrictive. Unless there is a service that offers mp3 format songs without any restrictions, "stealing" that song is the better choice.

Dont like the CD? Don't buy it. Don't like iTunes? There are plenty of other alternatives. Nothing gives you the "right" to steal it.

Believe me I would rather not steal, my point is to counter act the restrictiveness of SOME (ex:Itunes) legal download programs. Can you reccomend a legal download site or program that is reasonalbly priced and is not restrictive at all?

I use iTunes so probably not. However I have heard good things about (I hate to say this) walmart.com... Personally I don't think walmart is a good company and I don't shop there but other people have told me good things about their music download service.

is it straight up mp3?

R=ruin
I=ideology
A=a******s
A=accosiation
LOL

TO the Big guy of the RIAA....
Isn't it because you have money to buy the CD's you are stopping us poor people from downloading? Or isn't it so that you get a free copy from the artist
Why don't u leave us poor people alone huh ?
The artist gets lots of money from the people that can pay for the original and don't like copy CD's.
We don't go into the artist home to take away his songs..We just get a copy from a friend that already owned the song.
And just like many others, i got to know more artist from this p2p sharing.

Please, and again Please leave us alone ok. U have lots of money, so u go to get the songs from the shop. we can't

To the Atist....

Artist pleace don't let RIAA control your stuff, u still will make lots of money.
And tell me dear artist, when you finished a music CD's how many of the song you self like on it? Right you have maybe one or two songs u like best.. So do we ! Do we still need to spend the 20 dollar for the whole CD ?
I guess we have to, now p2p is a problem for RIAA. But guess what? we will then collect money together and buy one CD, and then copy it and share it between all the collectors.
Or we will just listen to your song when the radio is playing it, maybe even copy with all the talking between it.

Anyway im pissed of this all and surely many others as well.

Be smart and don't discriminate the poor. Thank you !

summary: "I'm poor and entitled to anything I want for free"

**** you.

Don't forget that RIAA is just another name for Sony. They are the chiefs behind this organization. A Japanese company defending the first amendment? A cd that may cost 35 cents to produce that we pay 12 to 30 dollars for? They have already been convicted of price gouging, and emptied their warehouses of unsold and unwanted cd's by dumping them on libraries, as part of the court settlement. So a Japanese company that takes all the profit to Japan is protecting us Americans by standing up for the first amendment. Ludicrous. It’s what the American public doesn’t know that makes them the American public. Bleed and feed, Sony. Use American courts to maximize your profits. Just put some of your money into wiser campaign elections. You can then buy any law you want.

The Problem Is...That Mx Was Freeware...And Thats Great...But Being Freeware...It Would Not Provide That Much Revenue.

Mx Doesnt Have The Money..In My View...To Fight A Court Battle.

In Regards To The RIAA...
You Spend Hundreds Of Man Hours...To A Petty Project Such As This...More Important Things Are Going On My Friends.
You Act As If Piracy And Obtaining Music Illegilly Is A Crime Punishible By Death.

WinMx Provided Its Users With An Easy, And Safe Way To Obtain Files. And Also the Oppurtunity To Meet Great People Online...All For Nothing.

To Be Honest...I Am Glad Mx Shut Down...With Thier Dignity Intact...Fighting A Lengthy Court Battle, The RIAA And The Fetid Stench Of Corruption Would No Doubt Win.

Better To Leave With Your Pride Then To Sell Out To Commercialism.

"WinMx Provided Its Users With An Easy, And Safe Way To Obtain Files. And Also the Oppurtunity To Meet Great People Online...All For Nothing."

All true and very tear wrenching...except often (though not in all cases) you were not entitled to those files in the first place because you didnt pay for them.

record labels release boodleg cd's or limited editon cd's and i am the stupid who tries to find them and add them to my collection...i don't think i will do that anymore.i am really pissed off of all this.So RIAA and record labels will lose money from me.i don't give a damn thing.F*** the music industry!

It is the humble opinion of this PC owner and musician that music is for sharing. The corporate greed that has turned music and art into a cashbox deseves to be turned on its bleeding ear. As for the artist: I am one, and my heart goes out to all who suffer and burn, and ultimately die for thier art. If the RIAA thinks they are protecting art then they are sadly mistaken.. They are protecting thier poketbooks. Maybe if the industry quit feeding the consumer fluff and brought some kind of relevance back into music and film and all media in genearal will there be more concern about who is losing out in this... I hope Lars Ulrich is happy....if he was a stARVING MUSICAIN WOULD HE GIVE A f@$#*

I agree with you 100% !!!!
the whole thing is going to backfire on the RIAA. Napster was shut down and 10s of others came in its place. You can't shut off progress in the face of greed. And especially in the face of many many coomputer Wizs.

Yep, too many people want something for nothing and they dont give a damn who they screw in the progress.

Exactly the eggheads will eventually win this battle. Technology isnt something you can simple turn on and off like,creativity and art right RIAA

process

doh!

I think RIAA is doing the right thing but i think all p2p on the web should be spyware-free and legal to use but winmx was a good program and was spyware-free wtf they shouldnt have shut that one down.

spencer9812, how can you possibly say that the RIAA is doing the right thing?

*They have been convicted of price fixing

*They are sueing the people who buy their products - which is suicide, that's like being a farmer and poisoning the food... though the product is what gives you income

*They are trying to increase the price to download music from LEGAL sites (Itunes)

*They are trying to shut down P2P networks PERMANTENTLY by saying in the courts that it's only good for viruses and children getting porn - Not true

*They even targeted CD-Writers, though there are plenty of legal uses for burning CD's other than making bootleg tapes to sell.

*What next? Impose large tax on the sale of Blank CD's and give the proceeds to the RIAA??

I think the RIAA has done ALL the wrong things and continues to do so. They are making up for lost revenues through the courts, and severely hurting families.

Burodsx...

25 years ago the RIAA tried that crap with blank cassettes....wanted $2 per blank tape...never moind that students who wanted to tape classes were going to get screwed. Didn't help the RIAA at the time that pre-recorded tapes where crappy.

RIAA had a lot of musician supporting this extortion...Beverey Sills, Quincy Jones...

And if the RIAA reads this, I used a P2P service...go ahead and sue me...I can use your subpoenas as toilet paper!

I think the RIAA is just going to wind up losing more and more profits as more people protest them.

It's not the file downloading that is hurting them. Lots of people have found music from other great bands that they never knew existed and have actually BOUGHT cd's produced by those bands.

*High Priced CD's discourage people from buying.
*CD's with only 2 decent songs discourage people from buying.
*Lack of knowledge of the artists (Not knowing the music) discourage buying.
*RIAA's greed and corruption discourages buying, in fact creates protesting...

Other then that, If I own a cd of an artist and I want a certain song on my pc I could still be sued for downloading the song. So what's the purpose of even buying a cd for maybe 2 good songs? There is none... And If I want to fight it in court it'll cost me $1,000 in lawyer fees.

I don't understand what the hell the problem is. The artist's just want more money so, they can buy the house in Miami or the $450,000 dollar car. They just want normal people that work hard for their money to spend it on a cd that only has one good song on the whole damn cd. Give us a freakin break!!!

If I purchased a vinyl LP or 45 RPM record in say, 1967...then bought the same song on 8-track or cassette in 1972 so I could listen to it while driving...why am I defrauding the artist(s) or the music industry if I wish to copy a digitized version to a CD? Didn't I already buy the right to listen to this material (more than once in this example)? The music biz, like virtually all other monopolies in the USA, has demonstrated that it is controlled by greedy executives (just ask any performer). I will no longer support it, and will NEVER again spend my hard-earned money on music. **** the RIAA!

What the hell is this crap? I come back from being away a few weeks and the first thing I wanna do is go into my winmx chat room and see if my friends from the south are ok from the storms. Friends ive chatted with for almost 2 years now and am very close to. But no. They took it away from us so now I dont know if they're dead or alive or homeless or what. I guess thats ok to these people huh? I may never chat with my friends again. Thanks alot a******s.

the whole thing started when cd-rw and dvd-rw came out.well...that's not my problem!!! they are free to buy so will burn as many as i want!

I agree! If computers didnt have the capacity to "burn" the music the RIAA wouldnt give a SH*T! they would be promoting artist through that venue! its low cost advertising! and you could get some not so well known bands out there some exposure! They still make money off of merchandising and concert revenue..So why try to hurt the small part of the big picture. Its just like running a business, labor cost is always the lowest expense for a business but its always the first thing cut! Start cutting into that ceo's wallet and leave the little guy alone! I would love to see a List of every Artist that backs up the RIAA. I deserve that. Wouldnt be nice if we could all go to our jobs and sue because we arent making as much as we think we should?

it's reallyyy sad the peer caches of winmx went down. i can't understand what's their problem??!! i live in a country were i can't find the cd's that i want cause record labels don't bring them here.what i am supposed to do???we don't have MTV here either so the only way to listen to a new band is d/l from the net.Radio..? radio stations dont play music i like...
Record labels have lots of moneyyy artists....have villas,expensive cars,bla bla bla bla AND i have to pay 20euro to buy a cd.sometimes....i can't affort it.

i dont understand the big deal who really gives a s*** about dl music. i mean yeah its illegal, but singers and music artist and everything make enough money as it is. its not going to hurt them at all anyways.

Plain and simple. Like it or not, downloading is currently illegal. Doing it i s breaking the law. Lotta people blew that off, til they got fines in the tens of thousands. So, do what you want, but don't come cryin when they fine you into oblivion.

My question is, where to get porn from. That industry doesn't seem to care. The loss of P2P services really only affects me in that regard. How's that for honesty. lol

first of all, downloading in the US is NOT illegal. there hasn't been any valid way that the courts have found to make it really illegal. The record company only threatens with legal action. they're barking and people are gatting afraid. We must stand up and challenge. If downloading is illegal then recording off of the radio and going to the library and recording a CD would also be illegal things which have been done for decades.
so pervert before you say false comments check out the facts

You are such a ****ing idiot it's incredible

pervert? lmao yeah... it's amulti billion dollar industry cuz I'm the only buying the product. lmao

i only just found out that winmx closed down,*sniff sniff*i just got my hands on winmx three weeks ago...and since having win mx i have actually had my musical knowledge expanded...i wouldn't know of half the bands i do now if it weren't for winmx. i go and BUY the music!
However, i found myself online for hours at a time,trying to search for files and it adversely affected relationships. i wouldn't log off until i had found everything i had been looking for.
WinMx is fantastic, i found it useful if i didn't know the artist of a great song. It shouldn't have gone offline, I kind of really dislike RIAA right now. but where one p2p goes....3 more are created...watch out B***ards! i hope against hope that winmx comes back....though i'm pretty sure it won't.

hello i am a big fan of downloading music i was sad to see that winmx was shut down but i believe that file sharing is the rite of everyone who has a cuputer after all all it is is a person allowing you to go into thier cumputer and take a song i mean telling me i cant do that is like telling me i cant borrow a cd or cassete from afriend on mine i understand that people should not copy the music and sell it and i agree that is illigal but i dont think anyone should have the rite to tell me i cant go into someones cumputer if they allow me or that they cant come into mine it is a problem for the music industry that this technology has been created but thats the way things are now a days im sure we can find a way to make all partys happy without taking away are advantages but really i dont think it really matters i believe this technoligy has been found and will stay around forgood one way or another thell always be someone with this technoligy

The difference is when someone loans or gives you a cd they are giving up their access and rights to listen to (at least temporarily). When you download a song via p2p the other person still retains the file and ability to listen it. Now there are 2 copies out there and only 1, if that, has been paid for.

your manufactured difference makes absolutely no difference.
wether 2 or 1 Craig is right no oen should be able to stop me from going into someones place and listening to a song or 2 or 1,000.
legally it has the same facts

Hello and welcome to the conversation. You might want to wake up first.

Going somewhere and listening to a song isn't the problem as the player of the song retains ownership of the rights...but that isnt the situation presented here is it...good boy, heres a cookie.

Arakiel, you are so lost in this I could give you a map and you would still be lost. How can you,with a strait face defend the price-gouging RIAA(unless you are one of them)

Welcome to the conversation, reading comprehension is your friend.

Did I defend their price gouging? Where? I never said that the prices were reasonable, I've only stated over and over that taking them without paying is theft no matter how you try to justify it. Just because you dont agree with a companies prices or policies does not give you the right to steal their product. IF it was we would all be car thieves.

The RIAA, just another American bully like the FDA and so on. The RIAA says that they are defending the rights of musical artists and upholding the first amendment of the constitution. That is absolute horsecrap! The only thing their upholding is their own agenda just like anyother organization. First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in there do I see anything about RIAA's right to go after hard working American people, suing them, when the RIAA has billions for lawyers and court costs while the people their attacking most likely dont. Congratulations RIAA for attacking those who've kept you in existence all these years: the people of America!!!

it seems like to me that we're living in a police state,where everything its forbidden,by laws!!!even in the U.S. freedom is OVER !!!
winmx?? i'm angry !!! they took away something more from my life...something,that i needed every day !!!! we should stop all this nonsense !!! otherwise will have cops,or government people,eating at tha same table,in our homes !!!!

that's right !!
soon they'll tell me I can't got into your house and borrow a cup of sugar because I have to buy it myself.

When you grow up maybe youll understand the difference between borrowing something and stealing it...but probably not.

LISTEN THIEFS!

DOWNLOADING ANYTHING THAT IS COPYWRITED IS STEALING! IF EVERYONE DOWNLOADED AND DIDNT GO OUT AND BUY THEN THE ARTIST WOULD NEVER HAVE RECORDED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE AS HE/SHE WOULD MAKE NO MONEY! WOULD YOU WORK FOR NOTHING? EXACTLY, NO! SAME AS AN ACTOR, HE/SHE ISNT GOING TO GO TO WORK IF THEY DONT GET PAID, AND ITS YOU PEOPLE THAT PAYS THESE PEOPLE WHEN YOU BUY NOT STEAL, BUT IF YOU DOWNLOAD IT WITHOUT PAYING, THEY GET NOTHING! SO QUIT WHINGING ABOUT HOW THEY ARE RICH AND CAN AFFORD IT JUST TO SATISFY YOUR THIEVING NEEDS. YOU WANT THE MUSIC, YOU WANT THE MOVIE, YOU WANT THE GAME, THEN GO OUT AND ****ING BUY IT, AND IF YOU CANT AFFORD IT, THEN GET A ****ING JOB TO PAY FOR IT! WINMX HAS BEEN SHUTDOWN, ****ING GOOD! ONE LESS P2P GIVING YOU CHEAP bas****S FREE STUFF FOR **** ALL!

When you grow up, maybe you will realise that borrowing is also against copyright. Read the contract before you buy, and like it says "If you do not agree then dont continue"

Borrowing is confused with doing a friend a favour, but you do not seem to realise, that by borrowing your friend you are rendering him the right to buy what you have just loaned this person, as this person has now seen or played this product, where as if you hadnt, this person would have had to have bought it.

Do you work for free? Nope! You rely on your employer to pay you. And an artist relies on you, the public, for their work, meaning, that you go out anfd buy it, and if you dont they will not work anymore. Just as you wouldnt if you knew you werent being paid! No one works for free. So I say again, stop confusing them as being rich that you have a right to breach copywright, they are rich because of their sales, these sales which are drastically decreasing because of you thieving bas****s!

I can not believe that there are people like you out there! Can you honestly say that you are perfect and that you have never done anything that was questionably? Some of the music that most people would get are old songs that have not been released on CD's. And yes there are just as many people that go and buy the music as there are that downloaded it. So those people are not going without, they are still making there money,and who are you to pass judgement on to people!! Alot of our so called goverment is taking away alot of our rights which is wrong but there isnt alot that we can do except take and go on. And how can you tell people to go out and get a job! did you even think once that they just might have a job and now a days its hard enough to keep one and make ends meet without people like you that pass judgement on them! And nothing in life is free we all pay even you. And yes I have downloaded from winmx for songs that I have looked every where for with little to no luck. So are you passing judgement on me a person that you dont even know? Does it make you feel like you are someone important? there is only ONE that is allowed to judge us and you are not it!!!!!!!!!! I hope someone doesnt judge you for your past because if they do you might have a lonley life.

Are you telling me that you have never borrowed or loaned something to someone, or do you just not have any friends? I thought there was not any foul language allowed or are you exempt from that policy? You have contradicted yourself on saying that they are losing money because of downloading put I still see them driving in fancy cars and making videos and and selling the music. People still go to Concerts and buy s***s that they sell and also there CD's. It seems like you are the one that needs to grow up. If you do not know how to spell then you need to look up the words before you put them down. People like you are the reason people do stupid things to other people, because they are judged for small stuff when there are people out there doing horrible things to children. Those are the people that you should be calling names because they are stealing a childs innocence.

holy s*** are you ****ing stupid

VALVESIERRA - I'm intrigued how you found your way to this forum. I'm sure it must have been whilst searching for a solution to WINMX, so don't be a foulmouthed hypocrit in making comments to or about others.
I am a pensioner, and do not always have what is needed to obtain what I want, be it music or film. Anyway, I was able to obtain some very old archive stuff which is not available over the counter now. As many of the artists are defunct anyway, I don't think they will to concerned about royalties.
If you are on a salary of 100,000 dollars, pounds or whatever, you are one of the fortunate ones, but don't criticise the less fortunate for what they do. OK

just a question. i pay for a pay perview pragram and then invite 20 of my friends over to watch it. should that be illegal? cause i was the one that paid for it and not them, after all i am sharing it with them.!!!!! if i down load a song and then sell it then kcik my a** for it but sharing a song i bought with someone i see nothing wrong with that **** i lend my car should chevy be able to come after me because my best friend didn't purchases it,

Wanna get busted? Invite twenty friends over to watch HBO or the fights. Charge them $1.00 each and you're in trouble. Promoters would rather charge all twenty-one people to see that fight as if everybody had stayed home in front of their TVs, or purchased tickets to the arena.

The NFL raided sports bars in northern California a few years ago. They used ten foot satellite dishes, to watch Oakland Raiders games blacked out on local TV channels. Another problem arose; when they sold booze for a profit as well.

Sellouts rarely happen there because they charge a fortune for annual personal seat licenses, and make suckers pay full retail ticket prices on top of it. I call it greed!

Well, here's my view on all of this.

I'm very sad and angry at seeing WinMX shut down and my father was angry at seeing e-mule shut down and I hope that Limewire doesn't go.

I was told that if you can't find it anywhere, it's legal but here's the problem with that:

You look in Wal-Mart, Target, Music stores and places like that and you can't find the artist you're looking for. So you go on E-Bay or Amazon and lo and behold there it is which ruins you getting it legally, and E-bay sellers could rip you off and Amazon is expensive, and with gas prices in the USA kicking up it's getting harder to buy a $13-20 CD

I live in a dirt poor part of my state where CD's with 2 tracks you like are $13-20 and gas prices are about to kick up to $4/per gallon due to the hurricanes so this is difficult and yes I know it's wrong but it's kinda a last resort to save money, especially with my parents always so poor

AND IT"S NOT WRONG.

It's illegal...that makes it wrong you freakin waste of human life.

I have one question... What happened to musicians playing and recording and entertaining for the love of music? I have read the news reports above, and the comments below, though some are rather rude, they all say the same thing. I too have been "downloading" music since childhood, without the need of a computer, and no one complained until a "faster" way of doing this was available to the general public.

I have to say I'm very disappointed at humanity as a whole; war, famine, poverty, all at our doorsteps, and we are b****ing about a whether music should be shared between each other at no cost. If I want to share what music I have, whats the difference between downloading it from my computer, and simply recording it onto cassette and handing it to them? .... What, no answer? Hmph, wonder why?

I agree with omegadm. I have always copied music from my friends. They can never stop that. I believe there are many more critical issues than people sharing music and movies. They should realize that all attempts to control this are futile. Maybe if CDs weren't marked up to pad the pockets of industry executives, we would buy them more often!

there is still about 10% of musicians around that do it for the love of music, most just do it to line there pockets full of gold, thats why ya got a******s complaining about downloading cause there 'not getting enough money' why dont they try living like the commen people for a change >.<

I know that some artists don't care either way, unless you're selling bootleg cassettes and CDs. Thousands of unreleased GRATEFUL DEAD concerts circulate on the streets and the internet. They didn't care in 1965 and they don't care in 2005 either. Phil and Friends record their shows, many of which end up as free downloads.

Hundreds of artists perrmit downloading at www.archive.org. Help yourself to free legal musuc. Fascist record companies rarely mention this site because musicians decide what should be there and not the frigging RIAA...

I've been downloading music since 1980 with my radio,putting the music on cassette taps,I never heard anyone complain about those downloads---now that i've downloaded a few songs with my computer,i've turned into a fugitive--WHAT GIVES

Wanna bet? Recording music off the radio used to be illegal in England. Many of those BBC Sessions Albums, featuring 60's artists were compiled from the tape collections of pirates three decades later. Bob Dylan doesn't hide the fact that his "Bootleg Series" is just that. The originals were sold under the counter at the head shops years ago.

Record companies tried to get a federal excise tax placed on blank cassettes and even video tapes in the eighties. Tapes deterriorate after several plays. Now they're really pi$$ed because the quality of CDs and DVDs lasts forever unless damaged.

I got my computer fixed last week and when my winMx didn't work...I yelled and screamed and demamded a refund. This is all my fault. Had I not gotten my comp fixed, we would all be stealing music now!

Stealing
Piracy
Cookie-Snatching

It's all the same. If I had the money I'd pay for the cd's. Maybe. But I don't and since I haven't paid for a cd since 2000, I won't start now! F--- the govt!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

As for the people who whine about piracy, I can give you my number and adress and you can buy and send me all the cd's I want. Oh, you dont want to do that? Then shut the hell up.

Ill gladly shut up when the idiots who try to justify their actions as legal own up to what they do as being wrong.

you're astup[id ignorant bleeding heart a***le

With an argument (not to mention sentance structure) like that, how can I argue...

the way i c it is that someone somewhere had to buy the music to put it on a computer. now when you buy something doesn't it belong to you and shouldn't u b able to do with it what u please? y don't chevy and ford shut down used car lots for reselling used cars? i download songs to see if i like it and i go buy the cd because i want to know if anymore songs on it r good....so p2p has made bands more money from me.

and not just that. many bands are famous now, get people to come to gigs and even get their songs on movie soundtracks because of p2p

You might find this humorous: certain artists and the RIAA tried to stop used record/cd stores from selling their stuff used, because they saw no profit from it. They failed miserably ofcourse.

Great let those bands sign off the rights to allow it. Oh wait they didn't? Oh that must mean they don't give a rats a** about your lame excuses of free advertising and if you take their songs without paying them it = theft.

personal attacks aren't allowed in commentary....so I have to keep this general....the entire government stinks.

and RIAA must stand for Raping Innocent American Asses, because they obviously have NOTHING better to do.

Question!!!! If everyone starts downloading music legally, i.e. paying $1 per song, etc....
How long will it take before they increase the price of a track? Frim what I have seen, everyone agrees that when you purchase a cd that you may only get two or three tracks that are any good. So if I pay to download only the tracks I want and they continue to lose money because I am only spending $3 instead of $20, how long before they raise the price to download? It will no longer be a question of legal or illegal, it will be that their profits are shrinking because the public finally wisened up and stopped overpaying for their products!!!!!!!

They can't wait to raise the current 99 cent price per song. The RIAA is at war with APPLE and I-Tunes already...

ok. ive read everything and i know its illegal but its also my decision to do right or wrong and im a bad girl so i choose wrong.

thus please tell me is WINmx going back online or is there another free file sharing site that is just as great as WINmx is/was sniff sniff?

Please dont go on with the moral issues of everything or the fact that metallica started this all, i know shame on them, please just answer my question...cheers

Can't answer your question but cheers to you for not hiding behind some lame justification like most of the idiots on this thread.

So Arakiel who should shoulder the burden of ensuring copyrighted material isn't swapped in a P2P environment. It would seem to me the burden for ensuring said material isn't "swappable" should lie squarely on the shoulders of the copyright owners. Or do you believe the whole concept of P2P should die right here on the vine, thus shouldering the companies who create P2P software with the responsibility for protecting "property" that doesn't belong to them. Seems to me we're playing the s*** responsibility game. The RIAA and it's members know they can't sue every person that dl's or shares. It's a lose-lose situation both logistically ie; too many damn people doing it, and strategically ie; suing all those people is going to look real bad on CNN. Therefore they go after the technology. And that is wrong no matter how you slice it. Using the RIAA's paradigm means MAD should be suing beer companys, car companys and bars. Go figure.

Well I figure this. If a person chooses to knowingly dl copyrighted material and the authorities come a knockin, well thats on them. They took the chance rolled the dice and lost. It's called personal responsibility. Like the saying goes...youse gots ta pay ta play. So hey you wanna share and dl go for it. Just be prepared for the consequences.

On the other had don't give me some c***amame bs story about the RIAA protecting artists. Ask your average recording artist just what percentage of the money you just paid for that CD they actually receive. The way I see it there's enough bulls*** from both sides of this battle to make hip-boots standard issue for all combatants. The bottom line here is if honesty goes by the wayside here and bulls*** rules the day the technology loses.

Sorry for the rambling and disjointedness of the reply. But im recently divorced and too ****ing pissed off and lazy to go back proofread and edit...lol

as i've said in the US the courts haven't found a basis to make it illegal yet. the propaganda from the RIAA and the scare tactics and stupid people like Arakiel here spreading misinformation is what makes you think it's wrong. screw all that I'm so pissed I feel personally violated and raped that winmx is shut down. but i can't believe they voluntarily did it. WHY?????

so get off this thread. who needs you here why defile yourself by staying on this thread?

your the defiling one by standing up for the "rights" of thieves. Asswipe

Because smarter people then you realize that stealing is illegal. And in case you missed it, copyright infringement is illegal. Your just pissed off because someone took away your candy bar.

Just wanted to let you know, WinMX is once again available. All you need to do is download a patch at http://www.vladd44.com/p...topic.php?p=26688#26688

I've never stated that I agree with RIAA or their policies...in fact I *think* I stated the opposite somwhere in here. My point all along has been that disagreing with the RIAA does not give you the right to steal their product. Neither does being poor, or being stupid. If you want to protest the RIAA then don't buy their products, I dont...but that doesnt give you the right to then steal them, that just makes you a hypocrite and a thief.

As a member of the record buying public.i dont understand the RIAA has to played "God" over the Music.They do not own the rights to the music they do repersent the artists only and nor do they have No right to tell US what we can do and not to do with the music we buy when its in our hands it becomes our property, i dont copy songs why dont they go after porn downloads, not the law abinding public if they continue this suing people for no reason i think they will see a backlashed of boycott concerts and slower sale, that's my opinion

Don't buy the RIAA's expensive crappy CDs. Boycotting concerts only harms the artists even more.

The GRATEFUL DEAD made millions by selling out show after show after show. Only one song sold a million copies during this band's thirty year career.

Ticket sales alone reached $560 million dollars between 1985-1995. They got by with no help from the RIAA record companies. Boycotting shows is a bad idea unless the RIAA record companies own the arena. Fortunately most of the coliseums, stadiums and civic auditoriums are publicly owned facilities...

So since they have shutdown WINMX, whats the best free alternative site to download?

RIAA has sunk to a new low. First of all I DID pay for 2 years of unlimited downloads from mp3downloading.com and use it through winmx. But now I lose my service...how is that fair? And regardless, even if I didnt, I would still be just as pissed. The RIAA is just hurting the artists. More than half of the bands I listen to were through researching. I'm not going to buy a cd if I dont listen to some of the songs several times. The artist make most of their $ from concerts and merchandise at the shows. And now the RIAA is trying to hack into peoples computers to obtain "illegal material" to find pirates and delete file from their system. I guess only the RIAA has the right to break the law. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

pfff what a joke closing down a site as good as winmx my problem is why go out and buy an album that only has 2 or 3 songs u will listen 2 and as for singles well there a load of p**s so winmx is good for coming and getting the song u want and then leave so its a shame but what can we do and who is this guy its a constitutional issue what is he on about lol

So you dont like most of the album and that makes it ok to steal it?

Well, it's pretty sad that winmx closed down. Not just because I was dling some good music but because I was also dling some great live videos...and you really can't BUY those anyway. The ones that you CAN buy I have actually bought. But other ones come from internet sites and some of those I can't access because I like a lot of international artists and many of their sites do not open for me since I'm in America. But the saddest thing about closing down Winmx was that I was able to meet people...and not just any people, but Italians! I noticed that a lot of Italians used Winmx and I take Italian at school so I was able to practice it on them. I also met some French people and chatted to them in French. The whole international chatting experience was better than the dling itself...they should just set up an international chatroom in place of it! For crazy language lovers like me! :)

I understand why they shut it down...and usually I don't download songs, I prefer to buy them with the cases and little pamphlets they put inside...but at least now I know some more international artists I never would have heard about before!!! Now I can go BUY some of their cds lol...

Visit www.9down.com in China. Download a free copy of of "Hide IP Platinum" and use it to get even with elitist geeks. It's easy to make them believe that you're in England, France etc. Then you can enter closed European websites from the hated United States. How ironic that a bunch of commies would make it so easy to fight those bigots...

speaking of commies....

someone should do something to you

Such as a big tough guy like you? OOOO internet threats from an anonymouse nobody...

Ive bought music, ive also downloaded music(If it wasnt for P2P then i wouldnt have ever heard of 98% of the artists i know of now, and i would be listening to some crap like britany spears or westlife), if i was to buy all the music i have downloaded then well.. ide be even more skint then i am now, im not on the best of wages and i know alot of people arn't, so if i was to copy a CD or 2 then give them to my friends, family, workmates then whats wrong with that? Most computers have CD burners, if there was something wrong with copying music why provide us with the tools? then a few months down the line be all ''ZOMG YOU CANT DO THAT TIS ILLEGAL!!'' and fine people for copying music, And yes i know its basically about shareing music through the internet, but the concept is the same, Just if i copy a CD then its untraceable(supposedly), so wheres the differance? are they gonna fine me £1000 for copying a CD? No! Cause they cant, its impossable for them, so they hit people where they can get money out of them, P2P Networks! yes its more traceable like that, everyone has a MAC address and everyone can be traced to there real 'home' address, Well most people! If they start charging people to download music like £1 per song then few people will buy them, and then try to download them free again (They will Never stop P2P Networks fully when 1 goes down 5 pop up) So why dont they add a small charge on Internet bills from your ISP? Say £5 a month to download whatever you want, if they try and say '£100 per month to download anything' people wont go for it and start to download songs free again, but £5 per month isnt exactally going to break the bank is it? and itll make downloading music Legal!, then instead of complaining about people downloading and takeing lots and lots of money off them, they could monitor whos songs been mostly downloaded and split that £5 between the artists, £5 may not seem much, but when you think about that £5 from around 5million people, its alot of money. Its just a random idea! and the RIAA have there heads stuck too far up there arses to actually think of something where everyone wins! Yes a few people wont be willing to pay the £5 for music, or if they dont download music they wont have to pay the £5, but ya. its a idea, and itll be a few years before someone high in the Music industy thinks of it, and on a final note P2P Networks wont die! They can hit us where it hurts the most thatll just make us stronger! People will carry on downloading music/movies for as long as the internet is alive! so instead of trying to destroy what people have built, make the most STUPIDEST Laws imaginable and basically destroy peoples lifes! why dont they just try and make decent judgements where no ones 'fun' is actually lost!

Thr RIAA mafia has already begun the crusade to outlaw CD burners and software like NERO Burning Rom. BetaNews had an article about this just weekas ago. Never mind that it can be used for legal purposes such as copying family photo albums and other important documents. Arseholes are only interested in their own wallets...

Too bad winmx shut down......I never thought it would. They should fight back and come online!!

Folks, the problem is a constitutional one. The constitution provides that Congress may protect the works of authors and inventors for a reasonable time. Our wonderful, greedy politicians have been taking money from the entertainment industry especially since movies came to the fore in the '20s. In return, "a reasonable time" has become in effect, perpetuity (that means forever). The biggest offender has been Disney in its attempts to keep Mickey Mouse entirely for itself (really!). The solution to all of this is a grassroots movement to force Congress to change the copyright law so that popular music enters the public domain after, say, 5 years. [Same thing should apply to computer programs by the way.]

Think about it another way. You go out and work for two or three weeks and you get paid for what you did one time. Music artists go out and cut a record and they and the greedy record company expect to get paid for THAT work for the rest of their lives. But the artists are probably not the ones getting rich. It's the alreadly filthy rich recording executives (read RIAA).

It will take a poplular movement. And shutting down peer networks is a good way to get is started.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. constitutionally the US has NOT found basis for illegalizing downloading and it is NOT yet illegal here.

It IS illegal to steal dumb ass

Ok. So if sharing music is so wrong and horrible and evil then why do we have cd burners. For what purpose were they invented. Was it to make copies of cd's we already own to keep for ourselves so we will have two. Surely not, that wouldn't make any sense. Yet for some odd reason not only are these cd burners relatively inexpensive they are also included with every PC system on the market today. It's almost like they want us to purchase cd burners for looks. I am proud to say I have made copies of all of my cds (I own over 1,000 of em) for my friends and family who do not make as good of a salary as myself and I see nothing wrong with that. What do people find so evil about making a cd for a friend that works their a** off but still can't afford a $20 sometimes $40(if it's a double disc) CD. Also I can honestly say every song and movie I have downloaded off of WinMx I have in fact purchased. So the millionaire artists didn't lose a penny from me. I am not a walking encyclopedia of music and I used WinMx mainly to find songs I didn't know the complete name of or the name of the artist in order to buy their music. Lastly as far as movies the only reason I ever downloaded a movie was because I saw it several times at the theater and when it was taken off I couldn't wait 6 months to sometimes almost a year to see it again. However when it would become available on DVD I would delete the file and, guess what, I would go buy the DVD. So RIAA and RIAA supporters does this make me a bad person or ,oh my god, a criminal! There are worse people in the world doing worse things than sharing music and maybe if people would use the energy their putting into eliminating sharing and perhaps put it into eliminating REAL criminals the world would be a better place. WOW! What a concept!

They invented DRM to keep you from copying your expensive CD library. Some new releases come with this copy protection even over the objections of the artists. SONY is doing this $s*** and threatening musicians who publicly tell us how to make extra copies of their new albums. Look for Switchfoot and read about their new fight with those RIAA swine...

Its a shame they have closed most of the p2p networks. I always went on these sites to download (leagal ) Software from people who just want to help or get noticed. I found some really stormin stuff from p2p and am anoyed that the various government and offical agencys want to shut down copyright infringement. I can understand that copying tracks are illeagl ect and it is stealing but surely with all the techknowlegy that we have we could filter what we download ie Shaggy.mp3 not allowed but Poweroff.exe allowed?
so music track cant be downloaded.

With the price of cds now, im not supprised people opt for the free option.

i think the recording industry makes more than plenty of cash,spread the welth why are they so greedy look how the stars live thats good enough they will never strugle in life and at $18+ for a cd and only one hit on it is an insult also the risk of injury having to drive to a store for a cd and pay over $3 bucks in gas to do so this way of life we live is starting to crumble and greed for money and power is the cause what kind of car dose the record industry people drive?there house im not going to buy any new music i can hear it all day on the radio and another thing there is a ton of music ive tried to buy and oh its out of print we cant get it the store says i never had a problem over the internet getting it so mow if i want something and the record proffiting people cant get it i cant ever hav it even if i was willing to spend my childs food money to have it, personaly i think file share was the best thing to happen to internet and its crap that the rich are full of greed see if i hold the door for one of them people.

I use P2P file sharing to get the albums I own on record or tape onto my computer. I am very careful to make sure that I don't take stuff that I don't already own one way or another. If something is misfiled and I find I have downloaded something I don't already own, I delete it immediately. The RIAA, or their agents, are more than welcome to sift through my 1000 + record collection as well as my 600 + casette tape collection to check this fact if they are feeling uppity. However, I doubt that they care enough about their cause to go through all that work. Because I have already paid for the music once, I don't feel that I should have to pay for it again to make it more accessable to modern technology. It's really hard to get a phonograph needle these days, and it's much nicer to have all my music at my fingertips, grouped as I like, ready to play at the push of a button. I feel that the RIAA is infringing on my rights as a consumer who owns this music in one form or another to enjoy it on the medium that I choose to. PC_TOOL, you've commented on quite a few of these posts and made some good points. If you come across this, please give me your thoughts.

AMEN...

I think that it was good idea to shut them down, but how are we supposted to know what to buy?? I mean itunes music store (don't get me wrong, i've bought like 6 albums from there) only gives us 30 seconds, and i really don't like listening to the radio anymore now a days, except in the car. If it weren't for winmx, i never would have found artists i liked because they don't play them on the radio (or at least the stations that i listen too). The process i REALLY used was: (1) search amazon genres (2) see an artist (or album art) that appeals (3) see if its on winmx to listen to more (4) download the full album via itunes or buy the cd. Now I'm stuck using mercora, which is hardly reliable...

i have a scnenario. if u went out and bought a 20.00 music cd then you would have the rights to do what ever u wanted with that cd right.then it would not be illegal to fully rip it to the computer and burn a copy for a friend.

The solution to stop piracy is simple: LOWER THE PRICES!!!

To all those people who are defending the industry's decision to clamp down on free music sharing, you are helping to kill music. I have downloaded music in the past, but I buy a LOT of CDs too, some of which I wouldn't have bought unless I'd downloaded tracks first! Its ridiculous that we have to pay for a 3 minute mp3, and I for one will never do it, and will never buy a CD of a band who actively supports it. Oh yeah and why has WinMX been shut down? Its not just for mp3 sharing!

I used Grokster to download amature porn which is not copywrited. It looks like they have infringed on my rights. The RIAA went after Sony when they developed VCR technology and tried to stop that. Obviously they were unsuccesful and millions now illegaly record using this technology yet these companies have embraced it and thrive because of it. I will download artists music via p2p to see if they are worthwhile. Since MP3 downloads produce inferior sound I will then go and by the CD if the artists sound worthwhile. There is the real problem for their declining sales. There is a lot of one hit wonder crap out there. Guess I will have to check out music CDs from the library before RIAA goes after them and shuts that off.

Grokster i have't heard much of that yet i think they well shut it down soon.

Funny! A coruppt RIAA member company invented the Betamax VCR in 1978. This Japanese firm also sells millions of CD/DVD burners mostly to pirates by their own definition. And who needs their new 16x "dual layer" model? These were intended to make bootlegs copies of Hollywood films with the right software combinations.

Guess who got busted by the New York attorney general for an illegal payola scheme just months ago? Guess who really owns the Columbia House Record Club? SONY...

Yea the ONLY purpose for a DVD burner is to pirate movies...right. Get a grip on reality.

I dont see why u shut them down. You should know they just make the software. Wen u shut one down 2 more well come in it's place. Oh yeah winmx wont die hackers have allready made patches.You should do something about that limeware are what ever it is. You guys dont know what ur up with u piss hackers off they well hack even harder. So till nexted time so long and keep up what ever ur doing.

Ok, I have just read pretty much every comment on this site and I can clearly state that sharing uncopyrighted material is illegal and furthermore, so what?

People are stealing music left and right, so we crack down on them, it makes sense. If I owned a record company I would be angry too. In fact, I would do everything I could to regain my losses, which includes going after the P2P networks. I mean the money gained from selling the music pays a lot salaries and supports a lot of families.

Now from my personal perspective, I don't buy CD's and I never did. They are way too expensive and the price keeps going up. I know it does not cost more than pennies to make the CD, because if it did you wouldn't see so many AOL cd's going around. So I don't spend my money and I refrain from being part of the price gauge. That's the power of the consumer, companies can only charge what the people are willing to pay. It is a two way street.

As for everything being illegal all I can say is that too many people twist the law to fit their needs. You can not tell me that the music industry has never done anything sleazy. Look back to Motown. The Temptations weren't even allowed to perform under their name because of the record industry, if they did they would be breaking the law. So I have no pity for the music industry, look into their past and see how many sleazy but legal underhanded acts they have perpetrated.

So please do not hide behind the law on this issue, also do not rationalize your theft. Both sides are behaving very badly and both are trying to claim an almost righteous attitude.

As for me, I pretty much only downloaded old tv shows, which isn't right but hey its the only place I could see them. As for the law, I don't follow it word per word I let my moral compass tell me whats right and whats wrong. Throughout history the laws of a country have represented bias and have turned away from the common good.

One more thing, the person who has made so many rude and extremely biased comments PCT***, what implicates you in this matter to such an extent. I have read your comments and found them to have true information but then to also possess a pretentious and outrageously derogatory nature. I can't help but to think that you are somehow very much involved on this issue, more than the average P2P client.

I don't see anyone addressing the real issue. What is happening now is similar to what happened to the Japanese in the US during WWII. The RIAA is going after "the network" (i.e., everyone) instead of the people who are actually breaking the law...those downloading copywritten material. If I break the law, please come after me, not the poor guy next door who wants to share HIS self-made music with the world. I can't be the only one who feels this way....can I?

Revolution sometimes works! Our city council recently increased the speed limit on some streets from 25 to 35 miles per hour because most people just ignored the law...

you go with your bad self!

Posted this before...some folks apparently need to see it again:

Excuses\Rationalizations for piracy:

- RIAA screws the artist and the consumer.

So that means you can screw RIAA and the Artist by downloading music you haven't paid for, thus depriving the already screwed artist of the small amount of income they would have gotten had you paid for it? Brilliant, Einstien. What's your next trick? Gonna rip milk from the mouths of babes?

- I wouldn't have bought it anyway/it's not available in stores.

Ever heard of self-control? What makes you think you are entitled to something you have not paid for when others did? Are you special because you want it more or less than those who would pay for it do? Three year olds are taught to have enough self control to not take things that are not rightfully theirs. Who forgot to teach *you* this lesson?

- They have enough money anyway/they over-charge for it

They have money because honest people buy they're products. They over-charge because people are willing to pay what they charge. Just because it is, in *your* opinion, too much, does not give you the right to own it for free. 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.

- The law is stupid, we should just not obey it.

Stupid or not, it's a law. Downloading that song off of P2P instantly removes your credibility with regards to this argument. Anyone doing this is using the excuse for their own personal gain. If you truely feel the law is wrong/inadequate/etc, other forms of protest will have an impact, downloading your favorite songs will not. All it does is give the RIAA more ammunition in their fight for stronger DRM and tighter control of *your* rights.

- I don't care. I save money and no-one loses anything or gets hurt. It's just copying, for Christ's sake!

Wrong. You disrespect every person involved in the production of the song, as well as every person who purchased this song legitimately. How do you get off feeling you are somehow above this? Just copying? Bull. More like; Just making sure the artists/distributors get less from each sale due to the fact the labels need to spend so much more trying to get rid of your leeching ass, not to mention raising the cost for the folks honest enough to actually *buy* music. You seriously need to take (and pay attention in) a few economics classes.

"Posted this before...some folks apparently need to see it again:

Excuses\Rationalizations for piracy:

- RIAA screws the artist and the consumer.

So that means you can screw RIAA and the Artist by downloading music you haven't paid for, thus depriving the already screwed artist of the small amount of income they would have gotten had you paid for it? Brilliant, Einstien. What's your next trick? Gonna rip milk from the mouths of babes?"

Let's make one thing clear. P2P IS NOT ILLEGAL. DOWNLOADING MUSIC IS NOT ILLEGAL. The RIAA has fed us with so much spun propaganda, it's appauling. Copyright laws need reform so everybody wins, not just the RIAA.

"- I wouldn't have bought it anyway/it's not available in stores.

Ever heard of self-control? What makes you think you are entitled to something you have not paid for when others did? Are you special because you want it more or less than those who would pay for it do? Three year olds are taught to have enough self control to not take things that are not rightfully theirs. Who forgot to teach *you* this lesson?"

This entire issue is over money, and money alone. If the consumer would have never bought it anyway, then the RIAA has lost no money if they download it. If the material is not available in stores, then people aren't buying it to begin with.

"- They have enough money anyway/they over-charge for it

They have money because honest people buy they're products. They over-charge because people are willing to pay what they charge. Just because it is, in *your* opinion, too much, does not give you the right to own it for free. 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."

I suppose what you are trying to say is that if an artist signs up with an RIAA-affiliated record label, that entitles them to become instantly rich? So, releasing an album with 1 good song, and 19 half-assed space filler songs is ok? The ability to sample the music before you purchase it is much more convenient for the consumer. Record lables make more money from merchandising the band's name than they do CD sales.

"- The law is stupid, we should just not obey it.

Stupid or not, it's a law. Downloading that song off of P2P instantly removes your credibility with regards to this argument. Anyone doing this is using the excuse for their own personal gain. If you truely feel the law is wrong/inadequate/etc, other forms of protest will have an impact, downloading your favorite songs will not. All it does is give the RIAA more ammunition in their fight for stronger DRM and tighter control of *your* rights."

Copyright laws need reform. The RIAA, MPAA, ect, are spinning the 100+ year old laws as a way to make a profit, not to "protect the artist" as they so claim. Why does the RIAA fear P2P? Because it will ultimately replace them. Let's say you are an artist. You want to get your name out, and have people hear your music. How do you accomplish this? This is where the record label steps in. Their responsibility is to promote your music, for a share of the profits. Now, if you had a way to promote your music without the need of a middle man, you would definately do it. Welcome to the age of P2P.

"- I don't care. I save money and no-one loses anything or gets hurt. It's just copying, for Christ's sake!

Wrong. You disrespect every person involved in the production of the song, as well as every person who purchased this song legitimately. How do you get off feeling you are somehow above this? Just copying? Bull. More like; Just making sure the artists/distributors get less from each sale due to the fact the labels need to spend so much more trying to get rid of your leeching ass, not to mention raising the cost for the folks honest enough to actually *buy* music. You seriously need to take (and pay attention in) a few economics classes."

You are using the same propaganda misinformation that the RIAA uses. If one chooses not to buy the music, the RIAA would've not made money from you ANYWAY. The fact that the RIAA can spend so much money on lawsuits, and STILL turn a profit each year proves they are not losing any money with P2P. Eventually, more artists will turn to P2P as their method of distribution. The RIAA is trying to kill P2P because they want control over the music you listen to. If the only music you hear, and told to listen to, is RIAA music, then any money you spend on music goes into their pockets.

Listen up people. If you want to hurt the RIAA, you have to hit them where it counts. Their pocket books. Don't buy OR DOWNLOAD any RIAA music. Boycott anything and everything RIAA. Support independent and local artists. Discover music you really like, not what you are told to like. A good site I've found on what you can do is www.boycott-riaa.com. Once again, save P2P. Downloading RIAA music is just as bad as buying it. If enough people do this, the RIAA will realize who ultimately has control of the music.

Even more stupid.

A RIAA member record company sold millions of BetaMax recorders to video pirates. Now they sell 16X Dual Layer DVD burners to anybody who wants them. These were made to pirate Hollywood movies with the right software and aren't necessary for lawful puposes.

Then SONY is even worse than Grokster, WinMX and other little people who aren't selling hardware and blank media to thieves. GET REAL your capitalist pig HYPOCRITE...

What are you an idiot? I use my DVD burner all the damn time and I do it for LEGAL purposes.

Why dont YOU get real you stupid liberal tard.

"waaahhh...copyright laws need reform"

That's about all I got form that.

Y aknow what? you're right.

Never said P2P should be illegal. What were you reading?

Money has nothing to do with it for the average pirate. They download it whether they'd buy it or not.

Want to sample music? Try doing it legally. Band's web-site, radio, internet radio, iTunes and it's clones. Ain't no excuse for piracy.

"you want to hurt the RIAA, you have to hit them where it counts. Their pocket books. Don't buy OR DOWNLOAD any RIAA music"

Isn't that what I said? Did you read, at all, anything I wrote?

what is a legal purpose for having a DVD burner excecpt to burn movies and such

Gee let me think

data backups, home movies, multimedia creation, software storage

tard.

CDs cost less to make than the old vinyl and less to ship yet the price has continued to rise. Now some of the companies have made it very difficult or impossible to make a backup copy for use in the car and etc. Personally I refuse to buy them anymore. I just listen to the radio, copy the tune to the hard drive via internet radio platforms, or listen to music over the cable system. None of these companies get money from me any more. They lose about $60 a month just because I won't support their greed.

"I just listen to the radio"

Legal.

"copy the tune to the hard drive via internet radio platforms"

Illegal. (unless the copyright holder has given permission as some indie groups have)

"or listen to music over the cable system"

Legal.

FYI.

RIAA is a royal pain in the butt! For an organization who can’t lower the retail prices of CDs and can’t pay artists more per CD, got some nerve to be throwing their weight on these peer to peer sites. Music is not the only thing on these sites that’s shared. And for them to make threats to these sites is ridiculous. Money, money, money is all they seem to care about, just like other companies these days. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay a mere $20.00 for a CD for just two tracks. And why pay a dollar per track on the legal sites, when they should be half? No offense, a lot of albums today suck. Why pay a lot for a few songs? RIAA can continue to make threats all they want, but they are fighting a battle that can’t be won.

Frankly, I think they are full of crap about the percentages lost due to piracy. I feel they are not losing as much as they say they are. Let’s be real, with technology always on the rise, older prototypes become… “affordable”. So why wouldn’t the average Jo take advantage? If this isn’t history repeating itself with the audio cassette. If they want to crack down on somebody, why don’t they crack down on these companies that make the products for reproduction? Why wouldn’t RIAA think that the average person would see a business venture in music?

Don’t get me wrong….I do support artists (certain ones), but I know one thing….until they make CDs lower in price say- $10.00-$12.00 and keep them there, I will continue to support my vendors. Take it anyway you want to.

Don't forget that compressed MP-3, WMA and AAC files are inferior to the commercial 20 dollar CDs; but we are supposed to pay the same price, for something that costs less to sell on line than in stores?

RIAA drop dead...

Don't like the format? Dont buy it. That doesn't mean it's OK to steal it.

People often confuse digital duplication rights between entertainment and software licensing models. They are indeed very different. The best advise to anyone is to read the labels and packaging. If that doesn't appear on your shrink-wrapper, visit the vendor's web site.

Can someone please please explain or direct me to info where as: If I Legally purchased a CD and made a copy for for my wife to use in her vehicle, am I doing something illegal? Or if my brother asks me to make burn him a copy of his favorite songs? I just think they are heading the wrong direction on this.(In my opinion)

"f I Legally purchased a CD and made a copy for for my wife to use in her vehicle, am I doing something illegal"

Not anything that would get you noticed by RIAA, but technically, yes. It;s for personal use, not family use. Again, you'll likely never even get glanced at for doing this...hell, you could probably walk into RIAA HQ, tell 'em you did it and walk away without fear of reprisal.

"Or if my brother asks me to make burn him a copy of his favorite songs"

Illegal. This is intentional abuse of copyright law. Again, probably not enough to get you noticed, but I wouldn't walk into RIAA HQ and tell 'em you did that.

FYI.

I agree with you. What is the difference in sharing a song (paid for) with a total stranger and letting your best friend borrow the CD that you just bought at Wal-Mart. It's not illegal to let a friend borrow a CD but it is illegal to let a stranger do it. I think this has been taken too far. Some one has to pay for the music before it can go on the peer to peer sharing anyways. I feel like it's sharing......not stealing.

I think that state marrige laws might prove you wrong. In Michigan, once you are married, everything you own is now "ours", including everything you had before you got married. (Unless there is a signed prenuptual agreement in effect) So the CD that was purchased and then burned for the wife's car would be a legal copy, since everything is jointly owned, in Michigan anyway.
The brother thing, yeah yer right on that one.

i thought i knew basically what the copyright laws consisted of. these basics have probably changed over the years, so, please fill me in on these changes if you can. i grew up in the times when 8-track was replacing 4-track & competing w/reel to reel. i had access to both a 4 & an 8-track recorder whenever i pleased. they belonged to a capitol records exec. who was allowed to take 30 complimentary albums per month. he used to ask me what selctions of brand new music i was interested in & get me just about anything i wanted. i used his 8-track recorder to make copies of the vinyl for use in the car. later on, i used his cassette recorder for basically the same purpose. this was at a time when the general public didn't have a clue as to what a cassette was.
he gave me a brief explanation of the existing laws & they basically stated that you could not make a copy or play the music in any way, shape or form in which you made a profit. if you wanted music in your bar or restaurant, for example, you had to use a jukebox, because you were in a commercial business & the music was considered entertainment which increased your profits. NO PLAYING OF TAPES OR RECORDINGS! however, you could legally play music on the radio. the airwaves were considered public domain. copying music from the radio was legal. there was a couple of stations that regularly played full albums uninterrupted once or twice a week. they advertised in advance & even told you to get your recorders cued up. there is one local (NYC) station that i know of right now that still does this. i don't really see any major difference between the airwaves of yesteryear & the cable or satellite systems of today (microwaves--still airwaves in my eyes). the mediums have changed with time & the speed of the copying is the only real difference. the technology has changed. i have older profesional recording equipment & can make a quality tape that you wouldn't believe. not digital, i might add. digital recorders can't match my stuff.
ok, got off the track a little, bottom line again was profit. as long as you did not make so much as a penny for your efforts, your were not in violation of copyright infringement. you could make a copy for anybody. you could get reimbursed for cost of the blank tape, but not a penny more.
this was the way it was, & the way it should still be. MUSIC, once released, WAS FREE. if you wished to buy a professional copy from the recording company, then you had to pay for the service of them making you a copy at a profit.

THIS IS JUST ONE MAN'S OPINION!!!

I don't think that applies to copyrighted material, but it might. Haven't really looked into it. Might have a loophole there.

I'm really torn on this one - on the one hand, yes it IS stealing someone elses stuff, but on the other why don't the music industry simply release into the public domain a lot of the old catalogue stuff that is never going to be released? It really smacks of 'if I cant have any money for it, then you aint getting it'.

Taking a leaf out of the software industry's books, perhaps they could release the old stuff for free with a sweetener of a discount on the purchase of some recent stuff? It seems to work well with coverdisc mounted software on all the mags - 'Here's version 1 free and we'll give you a discount if you upgrade to 2'

At the end of the day though, we all know that this problem has been caused by the incessant leechers who spend 24 hours a day downloading anything and everything from the p2p networks. Most of which will NEVER be listened to. The small guys who download the occasional track to get a feel for an album, or perhaps an artist they have no experience of, always suffers in the end.

Still, as many people have already said, it's still stealing. Doesn't belong to anyone but the copyright holder (however greedy they may be - thats irrelevant).

I wonder though just how many people could hold their hand up and say, in all honesty, that they've never downloaded even one single track? Very few, I reckon.

One thing is clear though. Something has to be done to conquer the problem, not only for the music industry, but for us punters too. The music industry feels they're losing a fortune; we feel we're being ripped off (we don't ALL live in the cheap 'ol U.S of A!).

I fear though that the music industry really couldn't give a stuff about us. They're not interested in fair pricing. And therein lies PART (not all) of the problem. The 24-hours-a-day-leechers are the other.

Okay, you can all rip me to bits now.

Why? You're spot-on.

As for "fair" pricing..they'll charge what they feel they can get away with...just like every other business in the world. Why should they care about *us*? It's not a service they're selling, it's a product.

All true, additionally I would like to point out that theft is not justifiable due to price gouging. If you don't agree with a companies prices for their product you are free to take your money elsewhere. There are a multitude of other legal sources to spend your cash and get what you want (good music at a fair price) such as independant labels, independant artists, and free music sites.

If the RIAA is out of line then vote with your pocket book, not by resorting to illegal activity but by taking your money elsewhere and not purchasing their products. If you DO resort to illegal activities to steal the music from the RIAA then don't try and justify it with some lame "all music should be free" excuse. Not only is that wrong but it shows a substantial lack of intelligence.

Hmm. You're right. But what happened to that old days-gone-by thing called 'Customer Relations'?

Surely someone, somewhere, within the music industry realises that the stance they are taking is exacerbating the problem. The industry should be embracing the loyalty of those customers who DONT spend their life illegally downloading. Some kind of incentive to KEEP them from doing so is, surely, a way forward?

If prices keep rising/quality keeps dropping then those loyal and legal 'customers' may start thinking of alternatives.

I really couldn't give a stuff about the leechers, who wouldn't give a toss if all music was virtually free (they want free, not virtually free and will continue to steal it anyway). I'm more concerned about the trying-to-stay-honest guy. Like me. Recently, I've had to fight with my conscience over how to obtain music and I'm sure I'm not alone.

If *I'm* starting to think of alternatives, lot's of others are too. Why don't they offer some kind of incentive to me instead of punishing me with ever higher prices and much reduced quality?

This is one industry where loyalty isn't rewarded. Perhaps it's time it should be.

I think it's only the leechers and the immature/knuckleheads who think 'all music should be free'.

I think there's way too much concentration of discussion on the leechers - they don't give a toss about price.

But I *do* think there needs to be some kind of discussion about how to accommodate the growing unhappiness among LEGIT customers. It's not always a case of taking our money elsewhere - we might still want to listen to some of the trash being thrown at us, just pay a fairer price for it.

As I said already, WHY won't they operate some kind of incentive scheme? Almost every other industry does it in some form. It encourages loyalty. It encourages the punters to stay legal. It encourages further sales.

I don't see why this can't or won't happen in the future. I think, right now though, that they're concentration is more set on pirating now than "growing their business".

Until they realize that fighting this the way they are is not going to help them and begin focusing on other solutions that might actually help the labels, though....

Heh.. It's good to dream, right?

We own the public airwaves - AM, FM radio and TV channels 2-70. In that case, the RIAA and MPAA crowd should pay a federal tax, for the right to shove thier garbage in our faces. Now ask yourselves why anybody should pay for those 60 second commercials?

General Motors pays for the RIAA and MPAA's use of public frequencies. We pay for PBS and NPR stations; so coporate types can have an audience that buys their Sesamee Street and Barney the Dinosaur toys...

Nothing will change as long as lobbyists are paying for political campaigns. "Thousands here and thousands there" get these swine whatever they want. there isn't anybody in Congress who is not owned by these fascist corporations! We call them a Parliament of wh***s for a good reason.

You'll see change; when we publicly finance campaigns and not before. These crooks only understand money. Most of us aren't a Bill Gates!!!

Price gouging is also illegal but you're not spouting on about that like the million times you've stated that dling music is. You're point has been made and spamming it over and over is just convincing me that you have no life and your personal attacks on anyone that doesn't agree with you is ludacris. I imagine you sitting in an office somewhere "stealing" time from your boss when you're supposed to be "working". Unlike you I have a life and will not post about this ever again as your undoubted moronic return fire will miss the mark by miles. To the rest who are actually debating intelligently, I pose a question....
To download....or not to download?

Typical, like so many others on this thread your one of the "I'm going to flame you and then run away because I can't back it up" crowd.

Wake up yourself. The topic at hand as you have stated already is whether downloading is legal or illegal, not what to do about RIAA price gouging. I was keeping on topic, you should try it sometime.

Oh and I'll give out personal attacks when I myself am attacked for not supporting your theft, human nature. I wouldn't have to spam my point of view over and over if people didn't come into this thread posting the same lame excuses over and over.

OMG you people are pathetic. All you idiots trying to justify stealing someone else's copyrighted work really need to grow up. "The Greatful Dead give away their music"... so what? Because one company gives away it's software for free that means all companies must do the same? Bulls***. Stop trying to kid yourselves and own up to the fact that what you are doing is illegal and wrong. Bunch of ****ing sissy liberals think everything belongs to you. You sound like a bunch of communists.

lmao...

You tell 'em. And good luck with that.

*grin*

Arakiel-Why is everyone so "pathetic" for wanting to "share" music? Let me get this straight...leading industrialists manufacture/develop recording technology (e.g. vhs, cassette, cd, dvd, etc.) They don't care if we spend the exhubarant amount of money on that technology. The don't care if we record tv, radio, "purchased" vhs, dvd, cd, etc. However, the second we make it easy to share these items on a large scale, THEN it becomes a problem. So where as I could make 5 copies of Zoro that I could pick up at Wal-Mart for $5 and give them to my friends it wouldn't be a problem, but if I place them in an environment where I give it to multiple people..that is wrong? Why is that? Because now the same companies that sold us the technology to begin with are seeing a profit loss? Give me break. These companies weren't worried about intellectual property rights when they SOLD us the technology to begin with, but now because of a lack of foresight on their end they are seeing a loss, we can't share information. Capitalism is the strongest survive, and if these companies faid away because of this lack of foresight - that is their own fault. You don't rectify the situation by bullying the very people that made you the money in the first place. Go drink some more of that kool-aid that Rush Limbaugh must be serving you.

Wow...talk about one big pack of lies and misinformation.

1) who said making 5 copies isnt a problem? making 5 copies might not catch you the eye of the copyright holder because your a small fry. 5 copies means little in terms of lost revenue...make a digital copy distributed to 1000 people and you have just made it worth their while to get mad at you. that doesnt mean making 5 copies is legal or even "ok" it just means you arent causing enough of a problem to be worth chasing.

2) Every innovation you mentioned caused an outcry from copyright holders when it was announced. Some have been fought harder then others but there has always been legal battles over them since day one. perhaps you just werent paying attention because you to wrapped up in your own narrow minded selfishness to notice.

3) A companies policies, no matter how self destructive, do not justify theft. Sorry but your not selling that snake oil here. Are CD prices outrageous...sure they are. Do i enjoy paying them? Nope. Therefore I go elsewhere to LEGALLY obtain my music without resorting to breaking the law.

Someone needs to Mod this boy up.

I think you made my point in your (1), or just re-iterated mine. Like you said, they don't get mad when it is "small fries", and doesn't impact their profit margin(s). But when it does start to affect their bottom line, then all of a sudden it is a problem. If this was an argument of principle, then they wouldn't care how many copies where being made (if only because they should have been smart enough to realize it would eventually go from 5 to 5000). But this isn't an argument of principle, it is an argument based on profits that are now shrinking. Again, if this is SO bad, why wasn't it an outcry from the beginning.

On to your second point about copyright holders screaming from the get go..maybe. Perhaps I have been wrapped up in my "narrow minded selfishness" or maybe I just have more important things to worry about. Maybe when I see major record labels like Sony, who coincedentally also lead development in these technologies, I tend to think they must not be that upset. After all, they have made billions on their cassettes, cds, walkmans, etc.etc.etc.

And if you are worried about the artist being hosed. I would think again. Right now it is the artists who get stuck the most. A new recording artist will make a small percentage of a debut album. If an artist where able to compete in an open market where their music was their marketing (not record labels pushing stations to play certain songs in-turn "narrowing" our musical vision to what they want it to be) they might make more money.

I don't want to get caught up in that too much though. I don't know a ton about it, I just know enough to know that, combined with common sense, attacking file sharing isn't common sense. After all, what will they take away next? The answer, anything that takes away from their pocket books.

I don't agree with theft, but on the same hand, if someone let's me have something, I don't consider that stealing. Especially when they bought the rights to begin with. You should read the link given below (http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/)

I recall the FBI warning saying something about not being able to reproduce if you were going to sell it. Well, file sharing is non-profit. I guess I don't see your "a companies policies, no matter how self destructive, [justify] theft". I don't see how we are stealing here. Perhaps if someone else stole the item and we downloaded it...that would not be right, but that doesn't make me a crook. In the same way if someone gets shot with a pistol, it doesn't make Smith and Wesson a murder.....

Ha. Arakiel, this one is for you.

"By Arakiel posted Sep 23, 2005 - 10:22 AM

OMG you people are pathetic. All you idiots trying to justify stealing someone else's copyrighted work really need to grow up. "The Greatful Dead give away their music"... so what? Because one company gives away it's software for free that means all companies must do the same? Bulls***. Stop trying to kid yourselves and own up to the fact that what you are doing is illegal and wrong. Bunch of ****ing sissy liberals think everything belongs to you. You sound like a bunch of communists." -Arakiel

Straight out of your mouth. Communists? Generalizing everybody that disagrees with your stance....sounds like you are the communist. I had no intention of making a post on here until I read that. What you wrote leads me to believe that you are involved with the RIAA or you're an artist or exec losing out on a small bit of an already heaping pile of cash. Either that or you are one bullheaded politician with a lost sex drive and
low self esteem.

At any rate...get off it. Dare me to generalize in my own way. If you look at the entire globe and factor in all...the majority of people operate on a tight budget anymore and don't have $17-$20 to toss down on a c.d. that, I hate to say it, only has 3 tracks that they like, let alone "love". The RIAA is wrong in a moral sense. THEY JUST WANT THEIR DAMN CASH. 90% of the people in the RIAA don't REALLY CARE about the artists. Most of them will front it that they do...but they really don't! Take 50 Cent. Dre, Mathers, Banks, Yayo,
and the rest of 'em all CARE about eachother. They all looking out for eachother. The RIAA isn't really looking out for those guys...they're looking out for the cut of money they get off of those guys. Those guys all started off from hard points in life. The RIAA is just exploiting their accomplishments for cash. And not a person on the planet can convince anybody with a slight bit of intellect otherwise, I am sure. And now I'm sure you'll have some rather demeaning things to say about me. Just let me throw this in...

I started at a company that is at the TOP of it's industry 3 and a half years ago. I started as a nobody...the bottom of the totem pole there. I left an experienced manager. My one BIGGEST accomplishment was having made sure that the little guy was recognized a little bit more and looked out for a little bit more. Now after having my first child and having made the first major move of my life I'm entering a management position with another company...and I aim to do the exact same thing. My father and myself both bleed the same blood in our seperate industries....he does the same thing. He started out in a low spot on the totem pole as well. He climbed and clawed his way into a key position. And now that he has that position...he is using it to make sure that the people that WORK hard get what they deserve...and have somebody looking out for them.

Maybe the RIAA will SOME DAY do the same and start really looking out for people that do the WORK and not just their own wallets.

A good start would be to cut the cost of compact discs to a more affordable price for the consumers....the one that really make "the record go round."

Now start the demeaning, Arakiel!

So in a nutshell your entire rant equates to...

You don't agree with the RIAA pricing or policies and that therefore justifies theft.

Do I really need to demean you? Seems like you've done a pretty good job of that all on your own.

Oh and for the record...I'm not an artist, or a politician nor do I work for the RIAA...I'm a software developer for a smallish retailer. I apparently just have a better understanding of right and wrong then you do.

Some people will go to any length to justify stealing s***...your unbelivable.

Did you get a copy of the song to listen to? Yes. Did you pay the company and artists for that song? No. Ergo you took something without paying for it...that's theft smart guy.

And those Hippies from the Haight-Ashbury made a Helluva lot more damned money, than selfish Arrogant heavy metal brats from Oakland ever will.

I wouldn't listen to Metallica's crap or download such trash if you put me in front of WinMX. Never much liked this P2P network as it was full of window shoppers looking at idiots showing off their vast library of pirated MP-3s...

SONY owns a Hollywood movie studio and big record company. Thet sell VCRs and CD/DVD burners and even computers that are used by thieves. They aren't the only one engaged in this huipocrisy!

What's next? A DEA official who supplements his income selling weed, acid, cocaine, speed and heroin. Then what kind of fool is gonna complain about a drug epidemic.

Hypocrisy? So the only use for VCRs DVD burners and computers is to engage in illegal activity? Is it Sony's fault that people use their tools for illegal purposes? Tools which have legitimate uses as well? Sony sells music movies and electronics and then people blame Sony for not being able to control themselves from stealing the music and the movies with Sony tools...that actually makes sense to you? Shut the **** up retard.

"And those Hippies from the Haight-Ashbury made a Helluva lot more damned money, than selfish Arrogant heavy metal brats from Oakland ever will."

Yea you keep telling yourself that and maybe someday you'll believe it.

"I wouldn't listen to Metallica's crap or download such trash if you put me in front of WinMX. Never much liked this P2P network as it was full of window shoppers looking at idiots showing off their vast library of pirated MP-3s..."

And your point is....

So you have never listened to music that someone else has given to you? You have never listened to a copied disc/cassette, or watched a copied movie? My guess is you have, in which case you are either a hypocrite, or you are too wrapped in wanting to be right, you have left the common sense out of your argument.

If someone "gives" me a copy of music to listen to, I didn't steal it; "ergo", it isn't theft...smart guy.

Try working on the common sense aspect of the argument, and then you wouldn't have to worry about insults and ridiculous analogies.

Ps. By law, when I buy a cd, I have the right to copy it as long as it is for non-commercial purposes. I don't see the commercial viability I am enjoying by giving a copy to a friend.

I'm not stating my opinion (though I do have one) on either side of this debate... I just wanted to point out that perhaps instead of just automatically assuming everyone "justifies theft" to quote you Arakiel, maybe you should just read what people say and just reply to what the person actually types... You say that in a nutshell your entire rant equates to.... you don't agree with the RIAA pricing or policies and that therefore justifies theft... would you kindly show me where in the "rant" was there ever anything that said anything about RIAA policies or pricing actually justifying theft... maybe I just missed it... Just a thought from an outside observer

Watching a movie from a friend of listening to his tape is fine. They retain ownership of it. Getting a copy from your friend and using it without paying the publisher is NOT alright and is theft. The more you try and wriggle out of this the more you sound like a fool.

You have a copy? Yes. You paid for it? No. = theft.

If you cant figure that out by yourself then you need to have a long discussion with your parents on how the hell they brought you up.

Read his tirade again, the first 4 paragraphs are a condemnation of the RIAA and how that means that they are evil so therefore he doesnt feel guilty in stealing from them. I was summing up his argument for those who didn't want to read his self congradulatory ravings.

By Arakiel posted Oct 4, 2005 - 11:36 AM

Read his tirade again, the first 4 paragraphs are a condemnation of the RIAA and how that means that they are evil so therefore he doesnt feel guilty in stealing from them. I was summing up his argument for those who didn't want to read his self congradulatory ravings.

Listen, b****. YOU read my "tirade" again. Sure the first 4 paragraphs are a condemnation of the RIAA. I never called them evil (thats a term saved for terrorists, bulls*** politicians like DeLay, b**** a** software writers like yourself, and Saddam and Osama your momma) but I did deem them crooked and dishonest. Not evil.

Furthermore, you attack people and try to interpret their words in horrible failure half of the time. So I figured it's time to fight fire with fire. Don't try to interpret me because you can't even begin to understand me you fake a** little b****. I have 3 songs on this computer. 3!! And NONE of them were obtained in any sort of an illegal fashion. Infact, they aren't shared files either. They are for me, and me alone.

As far as right and wrong and my understanding of both....hahaha. I understand right and wrong CLEARLY. I don't have so much as a speeding ticket let alone a criminal record of any sort. So...I do believe I understand right and wrong as clear as day. If I didn't I'd be driving like a bat out of hell with no regard for other people's safety or their lives. Or possibly doing something even more entirely retarded.

I'm looking forward to the next saga of the now ongoing war against your b**** a** that you just started. Don't ever misqoute me or try to "sum me up" ever again if you can't do it correctly, you clear on that you little ****ing queer?

In short....A_Curious_Bystander was the one spot on.

Oh yeah, I have a temper when ignorant people like Arakiel try to bend my words or actions in such a way that it could be considered a crime.

I'll be back to check this out after I get done with a REAL JOB tomorrow.

Yes your real job at McDonalds is calling you...run little boy.

Your entire rant is one condemnation of the RIAA after another all while sticking up for internet thieves as though the RIAA's actions justifies it. I didn't mis-interpret a thing, it's all up there in black and white. Oh yea, you called them crooked and dishonest NOT evil...phew glad you cleared that one up...there is such a huge gap there between the two...dips***...

So you understand right and wrong "CLEARLY" and your gonna sit your b**** a** there and tell me that people are justified in stealing music? You full of ****ing s*** up to your eyeballs and you can't see straight.

I'll sum your stupid b**** a** up anytime I feel like it, especially when a dumb **** like you start spouting stupid bulls*** as fact and acting like he's ****ing god. You arent god, your a ****ing selfish self centered idiot who never should have been allowed to leave elementary school.

I sit here defending the rights of a corporation to protect it's property and you actually have the gall to come in and attack me on it? God you are so ****ing stupid it's amazing you get your a** out of bed in the morning.

I await your next rant with baited breath...and NO I don't want fries with that dumb ass.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/

It's time for some truth in advertising. Here are some reasons why I will never sign up with those on-line music services. The Electronic Frontier Foundation blew the lid off I-Tunes, Microsoft, NAPSTER and REAL...

Read about all of the stupid restrictions, not faced if you buy CDs in retail store. Some of this DRM bullcrap smells like violations of anti-trust laws...

The RIAA are just plain greedy. A couple of days ago the news reported that they wanted iTunes to increased prices and apple said no. The main reason free vs. 99 cents. At that price people will not steal music, but they just don’t seem to be able to understand that if they keep doing this at the end they will force more people into P2P.

'force'

you missspelled 'make it ieasier for idiots to rationalise copyright infringement'.

I know...the keys are so damn close together...anyone could make that mistake.

I thought this was the technology forum not the English forum. And yes the keys on my laptop are too close together.

WOOSH!

Wow...that went way the hell over your head...I'll try to aim lower next time.

ROFLMAO...duh....

LOL

nice

Obsolete. This is old tech. There are better ways to get what you want.

such as paying for it?

The book publishing industry seems to be able to handle this issue in a more creative and effective manner. It's too bad the recording industry can't learn from them. As for Winmx, I'm sorry to see it close. :(

Actually music downloading has the opposite effect. Sales actually go up. Everything groups like the RIAA say is a lie.

Because they have nothing with which to back those claims up?

Do you?

OK, So the big guys like hitting us lil guys, and all to get filthy rich and fatter without the effort. So in your face RIAA, does anyone know where we can p2p??? Funny how they shut off our music etc, but they cant stop the porn and filth???? GET A LIFE RIAA AND GET A REAL FRIGGEN JOB

Umm why dont they just host out of the states? Just get a bunch of servers in Africa and do it from there...

And this is why it is important for us to get active in politics. The record companies make
millions and still want more. and they pay politicians through groups such as RIAA to keep rich.
And the politicians select the judges. They are all Republicans, which is a word I find offensive.

lol. If just the word "Republican" offends you, I hope you don't live in the U.S. It's always been a "Republic."

just face it the us suck's it's all about money. no dont worrie about the poor guy just trying to get the hard to get song's & music. nope let's just see how much money we can take from the us ppl. winmx was pretty cool. the chat part sucked *ss. just remember metallica started all this sh*t them greedy f**k's

ok....

Uh, it's not like other countries don't do the same thing. Perhaps you didn't read about how the IFPI is releasing some kind of program that will scan people's computers and remove any P2P programs it finds.

"DFC will be available online and on CD over the coming months in countries including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK."

Greedy companies rule the world, enough with the USA bashing.

http://www.boingboing.ne...cord_industry_rele.html

Yep, its metallica's fault people started downloading music for free and violating other peoples copyrights on their work. Someone had to be the band to lead the way, and metallica decided to take that step. Guess alot of people care, but guess what, they still sell out every show they play. Yep! God forbid someone have to get something the honest way and *GASP* Pay for it! Its also metallica's fault that everyone feels they deserve all of their music for free

And free speech takes another hard blow.
I have only one thing to add. Orwell had his dates wrong. it is happening now. Big Brother is taking over our lives.
(By the way, my connection was too slow for Music I was DL pictures, I didn't see that playboy was too upset with me. Just the music biggies)
Actually WinMX was good advert for adult web sites. I had no clue who Tiffany teen was before winMX. I am a member of her site today.
I say Bring back P to P sharing without the music, they don't want to be part of it, we cut them out completely let them pay for advertising. Win MX was free advertising for the adult sites and brought in a good trade!

you know what he's right Matall.... did start this shiza.

give away your rights, don't give away mine.

golden rule, back up off HD!

What right? Your right to steal someone elses work? You think you are entitled to a musicians work for free? People need to learn that everything in life isnt free, just because you cant afford something doesnt mean steal it. A right is something you should get regardless, stealing someone's music isnt a right.

Oh wait, that must be one of those rights everyone WISHES they had and get pissed off about when someone else takes them back down to earth and proves they are wrong.

Agreed. And while I do wish that Metallica hadn't done what they did, I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same. I mean when you are the most downloaded band on the planet you probably begin to think about how much money you're losing.

I think it sucks that P2P is coming to this, but it really is illegal. I am impressed that it made it this far. And like what has been said before...there are other ways to get free music...check out wiki.etree.org (follow the link at the bottom to the Live Music Archive). It is all free music, and best of all...it's legal.

> What right? Your right to steal someone elses work?

No, my right to make a copy of a file my friend gave me. Unless I explicitly enter a contract which says otherwise, it is my right to make a copy of whatever file my friend willingly gives me to copy.

Yes, it is.

Your buddy is committing a crime, which you are benefiting from.

Anybody want a clue?

Then you have a quarrel with my buddy, not with me. Whoever explicitly entered a contract agreeing not to share information and then shares it, is braking that contract.

I did not enter any contract and did not agree to anything. Until I do, it is my right to make a copy of whatever file is willingly given to me to copy.

Accomplice:

At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence.

Accepting music you *know* is copyrighted, even if you did not do the copying is not a defensable argument. You would still be held accountable..whether you choose to believe it or not.

I am not disputing a fact that it is illegal under current US law. I am saying that law is wrong and should be changed.

How is it wrong? If you give someone a gun and you know they are going to kill someone, its the same thing. Your an accomplice. You helped them to do something illegal

Ah...

Right. Then we just disagree on that.

I'm sorry, if I wrote a program and began selling it and your friend gave it to you...and you used it frequently without paying for it...I'd probably want to kick your ass... But that's probably just me.

This has *NOTHING* to do with free speech.

Folks are still more than welcome to trade non-copyrighted material.

I'd love it if they could have P2P without the music...but it ain't gonna happen.

Those who made copies from friends are not tried as accomplices under today's law, the coping and subsequent sharing itself is illegal. The way it should be is after you establish in court that my friend in fact broke his contract you may try to pursue me as an accomplice. But US law today criminalizes my actions on their own as if I myself had some anti copying contract with some "owner".

And to pursue someone as accomplice you need to establish a crime first. If, for example, my friend lives in a country where sharing is not a crime, then he didn't brake any law, and so everyone who got a copy from him is not an accomplice to braking a law.

All they need to do is prove you had knowledge that it was copyrighted material in *your* country.

Accepting illegal exports from other countries is also illegal and could be considered as an additional charge against you.

Care to go on?

I have never downloaded METALLICA'S $hit. These heavy metal punks grew up across the bridge from wealthy Marin County hippies with a different attitude. Most of the GRATEFUL DEAD's concerts were recorded by somebody and they didn't care. A lot of that stuff winds up on "free" music sites. They continue to sell albums, offer commercial downloads and rake in the money. They do not sue people who download MP-3 files.

Metallica is from Oakland, the Dead office is in Novato and the world's biggest free music site is in San Francisco. Notice how both freedom and fascism were born in the same area.

Are you saying that crime is not necessary in order for accomplice to exist?

Remember, we are talking of a changed law where copying and sharing itself is not illegal unless you explicitly entered a contract prohibiting those actions (or are an accomplice to someone braking such contract).

Crime exists when one knowingly accepts illegal contriband from another...even if they were not involved in the orginial crime.

I'm losing you on the 'changed law' thing. Far as I know copyright infringement is still illegal and distributing copies of copyrighted material is copyright infringement.

If you are referring to the rule of 'First Sale', it's dead. The courts killed that about a month ago. I forget the exact case..but it made the license agreement enforceable even if not read/explicity agreed to.

It's really very simple. Do you own a copy of the album? No? Then you have no rights to the music what so ever. If your friend gives you the file and deletes it himself you might have an argument, but if you both keep the file your knowingly taking something which your friend had no right to give you and deserve to get your a** sued off.

As I said before, I am not disputing a fact that it is illegal under current US law. I am saying that law is wrong and should be changed.

It's wrong that you knowingly perpetuated a crime and are held accountable? WTF is wrong with you?

Yes, it is wrong that sharing is a crime. Just like it was wrong that black person riding in a front of a bus was a crime.

He apparently thinks he should be free to accept goods for which he did not pay.

Must be nice.

Those of us living in the real world like it when we get paid for our work and feel others should get paid for theirs.

Great, so if my friend goes into your house and steals all your stuff, then shares some of it with me when i know he stole it...it's ok if i dont give it back and am not held accountable right?

cool thanks! he'll be right over.

> Those of us living in the real world like it
> when we get paid for our work and feel others
> should get paid for theirs.

I feel exactly the same. I do not however feel that you have a right to extort payment from someone who has a COPY of something you have, assuming he did not enter an agreement with you to provide that payment.

The total lack of anything resembling responsability for your actions being displayed in this thread is truly astonishing.

If your friend steals my car and shares it with you that action should be a crime. If your friend makes a copy of my car and shares it with you that action should not be a crime. See the difference?

Yes it should be a crime.
I see where your coming from, the problem is that your logic is totally flawed. For starters a car is not a good example since a car is not easily nor cheaply "copied" and there are a multitude of other licensing problems mixed in there as well. Better to say that if my friend stole a book from your house and then photocopied every single page of the book and gave it to me. I no more have rights to own the "book" then my friend does and should be held liable for copyright violations.

wtf?

Drop the race s***. That does not even belong in this conversation.

Sharing is a crime when it deprives the owwner of the copyright income they would otherwise have had. It is wrong. As I said...someone shares something I made and charge for with someone else...I'll hunt 'em both down.

sharing is great, but not when it limits someone else's income...even if you think they make enough already.

Ungh...

Okay, that's it. You're impossible.

I really hope to God someone else can explain it to you. You just don't get it.

Whatever.

To whom was that directed? It looks like you were responding to me...?

TO you but not ABOUT you. More of an observation...I should have started my post above with "I agree..."

Sorry...that "your actions" thing got me.

So my right to do something depends on how easy it is for me to do it? If it is difficult to make a copy of a car then making such a copy is not "stealing" while making a copy of a file is "stealing" because it is easy to make such a copy?

> sharing is great, but not when it limits someone else's income.

If I share, say, a jacket with a friend, jacket he would otherwise had to buy, that would no doubt limit income of textile producers, distributors and retailers, should my action be a crime then?

When I share my copy of Linux and install it on someone's computer, I no doubt limit income of commercial Operation System manufacturers (and we all know how many of those are out there), should that be a crime too?

Oh give it up and stop trying to twist words to justify theft.

If you took something knowing that you didnt have a right to own it you should be punished for it.

It's really a very simple concept, which if you have a hard time grasping then give up and shoot yourself as a pathetic waste of human existance.

Actually, I take it back, your just a ****ing waste of time. Your selfish, immature, and totally lacking in anything resembling a sense of responsability. Talking to you is like talking to a 4 year old.

You are using insults as arguments and I am the immature 4 year old. Sure.

"if I share, say, a jacket with a friend, jacket he would otherwise had to buy, that would no doubt limit income of textile producers, distributors and retailers, should my action be a crime then?"

No, but a jacket is a tangible, tactile item that only 1 person at a time is capable of using. In essence your friend is borrowing your jacket while you stay home.

"When I share my copy of Linux and install it on someone's computer, I no doubt limit income of commercial Operation System manufacturers (and we all know how many of those are out there), should that be a crime too?"

Yes...and in fact it already is, when you purchase software you do not purchase the actual software itself, you purchase the rights to USE the software. In some cases this is transferable so that you could GIVE it to your friend as long as you do not maintain a copy, but in doing so you give up your rights to use it.

FYI...trying desperatly to justify theft does not make it legal, your still a worthless scumbag thief.

Your twisting words to desperatly justify theft...yes you are.

Do you even know what Linux is? Do you know it comes with a license allowing you to make copies and share them with others?

So once again:

When I share my copy of Linux and install it on someone's computer, I no doubt limit income of commercial Operation System manufacturers (and we all know how many of those are out there), should that be a crime too?

apprently YOUR the one with no knowledge of Linux. Linux the KERNEL is freely distributable and no one makes any money anyway. Giving it away makes no difference to anyone. A Linux Distro on the other hand is NOT, often containing elements copyrighted by the distro owners. Giving away copies of those distros without explicit permission from the distro's author is a violation of the copyright and is punishable both to the person holding the copy AND the person knowingly using the copy. Many distro's give you that permission, many do not.

Any other lame a** arguments to try make youself look less like a thief?

I don't think file sharing is theft. Not legally and not morally.

Legally it is called copyright violation and nowhere in the law it is equaled with theft, while morally it is called helping your fellow human being.

You obviously have a different point of view and that is fine, we can debate the issue and hopefully arrive at consensus.

All major Linux distros have a complete OS under GPL license.

So once again:

When I share my copy of Linux and install it on someone's computer, I no doubt limit income of commercial Operation System manufacturers (and we all know how many of those are out there), should that be a crime too?

Why dont you help your fellow human beings by paying them for that which they worked so hard to produce? Are the artists who make the music you love any less human?

Copyright violation may not expressly be stated as = theft in a textbook somewhere but that doesnt change the underlining definition of theft.

Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

You took something that didn't belong to you and you didn't pay for it. That = theft

Because you knowingly accepted a copy of goods that you didnt pay for. By not paying for the item/music, you are not entitled to any rights to it. So by taking a copy of a file that you have no rights to, you are violating the law. While you are not guilty of distribution, you are guilty of accepting copyrighted materials that you did not pay for and dont have any sort of license to use.

> You took something that didn't belong to you and you didn't pay for it. That = theft

I didn't take anything. I made myself a copy. See anything about making a copy in a definition you provided?

That's just it "tool". The P2P networks themselves aren't the ones downloading illegally. They are mearly a tool being misused. While Free Speech may not be the best amendment to invoke, basic freedom IS being curtailed. Entire technologies are being made illegal because some use them incorrectly. You can't sit there and say "I'd love IF they had P2P without xxxxxxxxx". You either have freedom or you don't. You can't make the net a free enterprise for some and not others. Let me ask you this, how far is too far? At what point would you think the RIAA has overstepped the boundaries of reasonable protections under law? They have already taken preliminary steps to get CDs removed from public libraries, and under the new regulations, music is treated like software. Meaning when you buy a CD you have no purchase rights over it at all. You can't even give it to a friend as a gift if you have already opened it. So if you get tired of a CD and want to give it away or sell it, guess what, YOU'RE A CRIMINAL! American copyright law is OUT OF CONTROL!!!

If its possible to seperate the proprietary from the non proprietary then knock yourself out. I cant think of a single one where that is possible.

Show me where I can download Xandros Deluxe legally and at no cost and I'll concede this point.

A copy of intellectual property...notice the word "property"

I am running Debian. Complete Linux distro. All GPL. A simple option in package manager tells it not even to show me available non-GPL packages.

The point was, when I install a copy of that Linux on someone else's computer (which is completely legal under current US law) I am depriving of income those who sell OSs (Microsoft for example).

And you said: "sharing is great, but not when it limits someone else's income." Does this mean that you think I should not be allowed to do something for free if someone else is doing it for money?

Yes, and car is a physical property. But when I make a COPY of that car or a COPY of that file, I do not take your item from you, I just make myself a COPY.

For starters, I did not say that, PC_Tool did.

Secondly you only NOW are mentioning seperate OS distributions from the one you gave away (you never mentioned Microsoft vrs installing Linux at any other point previously or even Linus vrs other Linux distro).

Thirdly...you entire scenario now makes no sense what so ever. Of course installing Linux on a friends computer is not illegal as Microsoft was not the OS stolen and copied onto the friends PC. This is starting to sounds like a big copout since you arent able to justify theft.

making an exact copy of a car is damn near impossible with current technology. Certainly not like right click copy and send to 100000 people. Even if you COULD, the entire design of the car is the intellectual property of the copyright holder (e.g. Ford) and therefore you've just violated the law and stolen Fords property which they paid for through many many hours of design, testing, licensing and production. Way to go, I hope you feel proud of yourself.

> For starters, I did not say that, PC_Tool did.

Wow, there are more then one of you :-)

That OS example was provided to disprove statement: "sharing is great, but not when it limits someone else's income.". When I share Linux I limit Microsoft income.

So would you agree that statement is wrong?

In the context your approaching it, Yes, I would not agree to that statement. However installing a copy of Xandros Deluxe (I use Xandros as an example of a proprietary install) on your friends PC is taking money from Xandros and therefore illegal.

> making an exact copy of a car is damn near
> impossible with current technology.

So once again you are saying my right to copy something depends on how easily it could be copied?

> stolen Fords property

I didn't steal anything, Ford still has it's designs right where they were before. I just made myself a copy.

Dude.

They are not limiting your freedom to share legal files. They are simply removing hte most abused tools. Just share as you did before the tools became available/abused.

How far is too far? As far as they want to go. We have no rights to dictate to them how much control they can have over the distribution of THEIR PRODUCT!

More lies...

Give away or sell your CDs all you want. You are no tbreaking the law, and therefore are NOT a criminal unless youhave kept a copy for fourself.

You can give it to a friend as a gift...even opened...so long as you haven't copied it.

How hard is this to understand? Am I typing in thai here?

Why shouldn't music be treated like software? Did less work go into it? Do artists not deserve to make money?

It's their product, they can do what they damn well please with it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's simply no excuse for piracy.

Okay, "worm"?

"So once again you are saying my right to copy something depends on how easily it could be copied?"

Keep reading

"I didn't steal anything, Ford still has it's designs right where they were before. I just made myself a copy."

A design you had no right to produce but did when you made your copy. Your really going off the deep end and grasping at straws here. This is getting to be pointless.

Google the NET act. "No Electronic Theft"

The song has worth to the copyright owner. Be it $10 or $0.99. The owner copyrights the music expecting to make that amount on each copy produced. He/she sees each copy as the price they are charging for it. Each copy then taken without purchase is theft of that amount he/she has determined the value of that song to be.

Piracy = theft. End of story. You may not be depriving them of the song, but you are depriving them the amount of value they placed on each copy of the song created since it IS THIER SONG. They alone determine it's value, they alone decide when and how it gets LEGALLY distributed. Anything outside of that is theft and illegal.

I no longer care what your justifications are. You have wasted enough time.

- Fin.

Amen.

Man these textboxes are getting skinny. I'm getting claustrophobic in here..

> A design you had no right to produce

I think I have a right to make myself, say, a car even if it is a copy of someone else's car. I know it is currently illegal, I don't think it should be.

However we decide to handle each of these actions, the point is that words "making a copy of item" and "stealing the item" describe two completely different actions.

For the tenth time I do not dispute it is illegal under current US law.

Whoever wrote a song is in complete control of his song. He may even keep it to himself and prevent me from making a copy. That is his right. But if my friend gives me a copy of that song, the copy (not the song) is mine.

Last attempt before I give up on you as a lost cause for a human being:

An author writes a brillant new book, wonderful story. I go and photocopy and OCR the entire book, then paste the contents into a document and post it on the internet for all to read. By your argument I've done nothing wrong having only made a "copy". However since everyone can now go read the book without buying it, sales splummet and the author makes no money for the months or even years spent writing the book and the expenditure of all their brilliant ingenuity. Now the author decides to say the hell with this and never writes the sequel.

If you see nothing wrong with this scenario, kill yourself. Either way i'm done with you. Your a freakin tool and a moron who cares nothing about anyone other then himself, and actually has the audacity to try and justify it as helping his fellow humankind. You think theft is justifiable and its pathetic.

How business models would have to change once sharing is decriminalized is another subject. There are ways to make money from writing without ability to extort payment for every copy.

> You think theft
> is justifiable
> and its pathetic.

I don't think theft is justifiable, I think file sharing isn't a theft.

Wow.

There's logic for ya. It's the artists decision how it gets distributed. My friend can copy it for me.

Yeah. If you fail to see the disconnect there, you are definately short a few brain cells.

> It's the artists
> decision how it
> gets distributed.

Where did I say that? As the one with obviously far larger number of brain cells, would you please make sure you actually read and at least make an attempt to understand the statement before you dispute it?

You agreed to the post above you in that respect.

Read yourself, twit.

You obviously have a vast misunderstanding of right vs. wrong. I apologise on behalf of your parents for not instilling in you the values and judgment any decent human should have.

I suggest you remove yourself from any and all discussion relating to capitalism, economics, personal and public propertiy rights as well as anything involving the word intellectual.

You are obviously unable to comprehend these basic concepts.

I see your parents brought you up well. Nice and pleasant individual. Really smart too.

i like how the 2nd hand stores re-sell used cd's after they been bought and paid for and it can go on andon store to store with the same cd makin hundreds of resale dollars......criminals lest see the riaa run up on there door and say where the hell is our cut.

Okay, question if I may. I had made backcopy of my stuff. You know to have in the car. I had them quite some time. Recently my brother is planning to move away and he asking me if he can have my backcopies. Is that illegal?

He stole it, but the victim still has it?
not like a car, money or a chocolate bar, if you steal them, the victim is without item and the crook is with, the crook is greedy. Simple.

With downloading music they are both with, both victim and crook have music. The victim is only pissed because he is without extra. Who is greedy then? The damn victim thats who.

"An author writes a brillant new book, wonderful story. I go and photocopy and OCR the entire book, then paste the contents into a document and post it on the internet for all to read. By your argument I've done nothing wrong having only made a "copy". However since everyone can now go read the book without buying it, sales splummet and the author makes no money for the months or even years spent writing the book and the expenditure of all their brilliant ingenuity. Now the author decides to say the hell with this and never writes the sequel."

Have you ever heard of a LIBRARY??? People of an UNLIMITED number can go there, and read the book without buying it. The author has sold ONE copy, and an unlimited number of people can read it. What's the difference????

you are ****ing retarded. A library retains ownsership of the individual item...the book. You borrow the book and when its in your possession only you have access to the book to read it. No one else going to the library can read the book, except in cases where the library has multiple copies.

Its the difference between borrowing and stealing ****tard.

this really upsets me about winmx. there are us folks that just enjoy downloading and listening to music. We are the ones that are too poor in this country to even afford to go out to eat so this is our entertainment, leave us alone and let us continue to share our music!!!!

God this is lame.

I just enjoy breaking the law. I'm poor. Leave me alone.

Yeah, that attitude is crap. Steal food, steal clothes... these are necessities, and to a certain degree, forgivable.

Entertainment is not a necessity. There are abundant sources of free and legal entertainment.

"leave us alone and let us continue to share our music!!!!"

When did it become YOUR music? The music belongs to the artists and the record companies, if you had paid for a copy of it you would have the rights to listen to it but that doesn't make it YOUR music.

Arakiel- You seem to be very much against stealing - I wanted to know if you have been equally as faithful in following the other 9 commandments? I would hope that you are - because you speak as if you have NEVER done any wrong before. And to me, if your going to feel so strongly about one sin - you should walk the straight line and feel just as strongly about all the other sins.

Catholcism and it's commandments can suck me, I follow the rule of laws and my moral compass given to me by parent who understand right from wrong, wtf does religion have to do with the topic at hand?

No need to buy over priced CDs and DVDs any more! The big chain stores openly advertise used copyrighted materials. We've come a long way from the days of; when hippie stores were trading used rock albums

Ever notice how the video stores unload their rental movies every few months at a fraction of the original sale price? DARK SIDE OF THE MOON is a a classic album, selling millions of copies since 1973. How much has PINK FLOYD lost in royalties because the retail stores traffic in used CDs?

This competes directly with the sale, of new copies of the same works, cutting industry profits. Big Time!

Artists don't get royalties for used items sold at flea markets, garage sales or charity thrift stores. And neither does the RIAA.

Fools let public libraries distribute copyrighted books, music and movies. Anybody can borrow these for free, instead of renting or buying them.

We're talking about high quality WAV audio and DVD video files here. Then what could more silly than going crazy over people who are satisfied with inferior compressed MP-3 or Divx formats. This is the 21st Century version of the crappy 8 track tape cartridges, and record companies wanna get in the business of hawking second rate merchandise on line.

A few artists are offering the lossless formats like SHN or FLAC files on their websites. I've bought some of these because they're the same quality as the $17.00 plus version in the stores without all of the art work covers. The RIAA can keep their I-Tunes, Roxio's Napster and those damned DRM files too...

All those examples that you gave are accounted for in other legislations and are perfectly legal as long as applicable restrictions are recognized.

For example, in most areas, they limit how many "garage sales" you can have per year, etc...

OMG...someone offering a cheap alternative to piracy?

*pinches self*

Nope, I'm awake. Sweet.

But artists get no royalties when we sell used record albums and CDs. And there no restrictions on how many times people can rent spaces at the flea markets. Nobody gets a penny except when you buy new factory sealed merchandise...

Which is how it should be. It's been sold once. The original owner no longer has it. It's already made them money, why should it again.

Now if this were a *copy*...it'd be different.

most pawn shops will pay you for burnt cds which are copied no matter how you look at it

too bad, they had a awesome chat service.

@ AKAbabygirl822
Try BitTorrent in combination with www.thepiratebay.org
Hosted in Sweden where the RIAA has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
Or just do a 'google' on BitTorrent or torrents and see what you can find.
Stupid RIAA they might cripple US sources, but they'll never get to some off the European sources.

I dunno... they got Kazaa in Australia...

Torrents are dangerous, they're the best way to get busted for downloading music or movies. I'd stay far away from them.

Thats true, and I do believe they will try to get a foothold in Europe to. They actually have allready, filesharing is illegal in Switzerland.
But...it will take them years to actually change all the induvidual laws of each country (assuming they cooperate)...long live European bureaucracy, lol.

Stupidity is also dangerous! How the hell torrent can be the best way to be busted? Maybe in the most ridiculus country I ever heard of -> USA

Sh*t you're right. Forgot this was an US site. How about IRC or FTP?

Wow. Didn't know that about Switzerland.

If only there were some way to block IP addresses associated with high-risk sources and known corporate watchdogs... (cough, cough *PeerGuardian* )

Yeah. They justed busted a torrent group for distrubiting copies of the latest STAR WARS movie...

Ever heard of something called "Hide IP Platinum". It makes people think that you're half way around the world. I've used it to enter sites in the EU, which block access from the rest of the world. They're elitist pigs!

Just remember to turn it off, before trying to enter your Hotmail or Yahoo e-mail services...

P2P sharing will never die no matter what the RIAA thinks, where they shut one down, 5 will pop up in it's place, and that makes me feel good! It takes a lot of work to keep the internet the way it's supposed to be, not the way the RIAA "THINKS" it should be, but it's worth it!!

Amen Brother!

no P2P anymore eh? hmmm well that must mean no one will ever copy anything ever again right? ... as if, oh well time to get out the old tape recorder and radio me thinks :)

Now the RIAA is trying to shut everyone down?! What about all the LEGAL files people share on these networks? Oh yeah. Too bad for the little guy or the honest people right?

- -
ATTENTION RIAA
Due to your greed, selfish desire to control what is not yours I am now settting out to do the same to you. Excuse me me while I do download as many mp3's as I can. If you dont like it.... Sue me. Actually you'll need to get in line.

Jesus. Your logic confouds itself.

Look, it ain't RIAA's fault P2P networkls are swamped with warez-kiddies. They *have* to do something about it.

I'm sorry they're taking 'em down, but I'll blamethe damn pirates before I blame RIAA.

Put your ire where it belongs, the pirates downloading it, not on the folks trying to protect it.

awwww :S winmx was an oldie, but a goody.

I got one more silver $ and I'm not gonna let'em catch the midnight rider...Change & Diversify will never cease...peace

I was wondering what had happened i thought i did something wrong or the computer of mine was over loaded.. well this explains why i can not get into WIN Mx. One thing can you inform me of sites i may go for free music and downloads.. thank you

Well As far as I know there are many countries where RIAA and such can kiss our a** goodbye. Take for example piratebay.org you can read there what most of people think of RIAA. And if so, the p2p will caese to "be" only if any better filesharing thing will be discovered.

Whew...dodged a bullet on that one. Need these P2P bia***es to stay around and keep **AA's gaze from usenet.

I can't stand downloading distros from P2P...or anything for that matter. Screw this sharing crap. RedHat, Debian, Mandrake...these folks really need to consider posting their images directly to the usenet. No ratios, no need to depend on folks to upload. Straight 5+Mb/sec downloads, all day long.

Unfortunately, it also contains a vast wasteland of craptastic warez/music/etc that will ruin it completely when RIAA gets a hold of it.

I just wanted to say that I did not download anything to steal it was just some songs I cant normally find and that really stinks that they would do this it is a place where people who have music wants to share it and 9 times out of ten those people purchased it to begin with so what they are saying is that what you do with your own music is not your buisness if you buy your own music you ought to able to share it if you want to thanks for letting me vent

"...and 9 times out of ten those people purchased it to begin with"

Umm... no. I don't know where you think you heard that from, but that's certainly not true.

"what you do with your own music is not your buisness if you buy your own music you ought to able to share it if you want to"

Wrong. What you do with your music is still certainly your business. It's only when you distribute OTHER people's music that they have rights to that the RIAA has a problem. You don't own the music you buy - only the right to listen to it.

Also, punctuation is our friend.

They just don't want you to be able to listen to the crap they're trying to shove down your throat, because chances are after hearing that garbage you wouldn't pay money for it. This is the era of big crappy corporate music, and if you don't like it, we'll sick our lawyers with small genitals on you.

By wincement:

"You don't own the music you buy - only the right to listen to it".

Am I to take this as fact for everything else I buy?

1). I don't own the car I buy. I just purchased the privilege to drive it.

2). I do not own the clothing I buy. Just the right to wear them.

3). I don't own the food I purchase. Only the right to eat it.

etc....etc...

When you buy something, the seller gets his/her
money and then relinquishes ownership to the buyer. That's how it is with someone selling a used car, anyway.

I sell my car..I get my money...the car is not mine any more. It is has transferred ownership to the buyer who

*paid* for it.

So, if the RIAA sells me a product (a song), they get their money from me (the customer);
then relinquish the ownership of that one particular copy of a mass-produced song to me who bought it (all the meanwhile, they sell more copies to other people, who will also own them)... Then I can do what I want with it
because I *paid* for it.

But, the RIAA distorts this situation to justify their greed, by making people pay twice or more for the same song. Hey, if you can't make a copy for your car stereo because of the DRM restrictions, buy it AGAIN. A backup copy? Buy it AGAIN...etc.

I will now sit back and await the flames.

WinMx was crap anyway. Ed2k and BitTorrent are rather untouchable so who cares?

Hmmmm. Possible course of action that may well occur one day:

Open a major node in Russia or China (or even Brazil) and tell the RIAA two words that are not "Happy Birthday".

Next...

the letter F please pat. I'd like to buy a voul. the letter U?
I'd like to solve the puzzel.

Sadly, two days later, the node loses power mysteriously and all the folks who worked there are no longer reachable for comment.

Must've been a storm....yeah, that's the ticket.

eDonkey Alive, Well, and Still In Business
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=923

Let's clear this up immediately. eDonkey's offices are open for business, and Sam Yagan is readily available, as Slyck spoke with MetaMachine's President on these wild rumors.

"We haven't been operating out of New York City since 2004," Mr. Yagan told Slyck.com. "Our offices are in New Jersey now."

MetaMachine is clearly open for business. While its narrowly true that MetaMachine's New York representatives are unavailable as many news articles report, this has been the case for almost a year.

Freenet here we come...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

They cant do anything about IRC, torretns are different but as long as you watch your step they cant do much eather.

well i agree with the people this move by RIAA only shows the true nature of this country but also should show people what as citizens we are up aganist,RIAA claims piracy and losses of money but what about losses we as the people suffer everyday we work our a** off just to survive and then expected to pay $20 a CD for 1 or 2 songs sorry i wont do it anymore also once u buy a cd u should be able do whatever u want with it besides i dont get how these people can come and try to control what peolpe do with music they already own i know they say this about money but if you really think about it its about control over not only the internet but over people them selves and i think it bothers them not to have a hand in p2p networks and people basically helping each other by sharing music.

With great respect, I believe some of you are missing the key point. This time the charge is creating software that enables piracy. However, this does not mean that the software itself is the pirate. If I use any browser, including Microsoft's Internet Explorer, I can access any text and download it. That's the point of the Internet is it not? But much of that material, including my own, is copyrighted, plain and simple. You can copy it, share it with anyone at all. You just can't publish it (legally). Thatis to say, you can't sell it if it isn't yours to sell.

If WinMx is ruled illegal, then Xerox, Microsoft and in fact any technology that allows you to copy or even access your own files would also be illegal.Don't be sidetracked or fooled by arguments of who owns what. At this point, it the ability to access files on another users computer with their consent that is on trial.

Well I've read everyones points, however I have come to my own conclusion..... I JUST DON'T GIVE A !@#$.

I'm gonna copy music,movies,games, and what ever else I can copy just because I can. And the fact is I'm not taking to much money from them because I still see MTV Cribs and it certainly doesnt look like I'm hurting their profits.

Further more even if the price was just $5.00 a CD I would still download because its more convient for me and I get the songs I want. I personnally download more movies than music so Winmx shutting down really pisses me off!